Go vote!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1vtp6zikYXgaMJr3M7-ESFs5yH_zMDPJQ19BhsiYImS4/viewform

Edit - Link to results:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/02/29/signals-from-the-frontline-413/

There's a thread for this already

This is also an appropriate subforum for this, although I think the 40k general gets more traffic overall compared to tourney discussions

Well that is what I get for sleep deprivation and not checking the other subforum

Mods you can just lock this up. No need for clutter

Thanks for catching that - but for now I think it's OK to have a thread up in both forums, at least while the poll is active!

I have voted in the poll and really liked the wording of the questions this time around, very neutral! Only thing to improve is that when you're done, it links back to take the poll again which probably should not be encouraged!

As I said in the other post, I plan on sending a message to the ITC guys (not sure if I go through the rules question submissions or just E-mail frankie though...) about getting an option on the next pole to decrease the detachment allotment to 2. I felt that it was weirdly missing from this poll, as they talked about detachment limits and lowering the points scale but not lowering the detachment limits to go with the possible point drop.

Well the poll does address it in two questions, but it's to remain the same or not, and if increasing it to go to 4 or unlimited.

It looks like they wanted to keep questions to only two answers this time, which I like as it will indicate a clear majority for those who vote. I can't really see events going down to two detachments in this edition...

I could. It's really not hard with decurions being a thing, it just helps put a stop to lists like SpiderSpam and Super Friends who are the main abusers.

2 source can still do spider spam easily. My spider list was 2 source and the Inquisitor was a third. Could easily play the list as 2 source but lose an Inquisitor which isn't a big deal.

I cant wait to see the results of this! I want to know do players vote to gain a competitive advantage or naw.

 CKO wrote:
I cant wait to see the results of this! I want to know do players vote to gain a competitive advantage or naw.

I can answer that question for you...

"Some players do, other players don't"

Its like people can be different and don't all fit into one single preconceived notion

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:
I cant wait to see the results of this! I want to know do players vote to gain a competitive advantage or naw.

I can answer that question for you...

"Some players do, other players don't"

Its like people can be different and don't all fit into one single preconceived notion

....how long have you been sitting on this information ?!?

WTF?

At the end of the poll was the option to "Submit another response." This is the same thing that happened with the last ITC poll where one D-Bag said he voted 50 different times.

then they would have 50 responses all from the same email and cut 49 out

 doktor_g wrote:
WTF?

At the end of the poll was the option to "Submit another response." This is the same thing that happened with the last ITC poll where one D-Bag said he voted 50 different times.

They track that. Even if you sign up with a different email, your IP address is the same. If you use an IP address scrambler and use a different registered email each time, well congrats. But it might not shock anyone that if FLG saw a bunch of responses that were all submitted within minutes of each other with the same or extremely similar responses, they would know what's up.

Even if you changed some or most of the responses, the reason behind you doing that type of process would be to get a single (or a few) questions affected in the way that you want. So again, in a vote that is more or less 50/50 (for a contentious issue) if you see that 50 responses in a row have the same answer to even just one question, it's a very clear indicator that someone is gaming that system. Because the odds of that happening are (1/2)^50. It's a virtual certainty that someone is tampering, and google makes these patterns easy to spot with how they arrange their polls.

Truth be told, though, it's a fair question as to why the option to vote again exists....but I suppose it sort of has to since there is no "sign in" except for the email, so you have to allow anyone to start the poll.

The one flaw in that assumption is that it basically necessitates a judgement call that a topic should be 50/50 since if the gaming was significant enough, it no longer would be.

 doktor_g wrote:
WTF?

At the end of the poll was the option to "Submit another response." This is the same thing that happened with the last ITC poll where one D-Bag said he voted 50 different times.

yeah, saw that too

 FTGTEvan wrote:
The one flaw in that assumption is that it basically necessitates a judgement call that a topic should be 50/50 since if the gaming was significant enough, it no longer would be.

\


Yes and no. I mean, you could have a vote swing big time (say 66 percent or more vote a specific way). But even then, (2/3)^50 is a really, really small percentage. It's .0000000014. You think it's a coincidence when the sample size is a few thousand voters, or is there maybe something fishy there? Really not hard to figure out

 FTGTEvan wrote:
The one flaw in that assumption is that it basically necessitates a judgement call that a topic should be 50/50 since if the gaming was significant enough, it no longer would be.

Except they also compare the votes to registered players in ITC. So if the vote is drastically off from people who attended events that's also an indicator of something afoot.

The last poll actually included those numbers as well and it was similar to the at large vote. In fact the guy claiming he voted 50 times was either lying or didn't realize his votes were blocked.

It's funny when people say the questions are intentionally biased because if you guys were more conspiracy theorists or big brother it's out to get me you'd realize since the vote isn't transparent at who voted you would wonder if FLG was really anti tau they would rig the vote not the questions. I dont think this happens but the 40k community has plenty of nutso.

It should not have the link to go back and vote again. Oh well.

Would have liked to have seen the other Tau votes - I was under the understanding the Tau rules issues would be revoted post LVO, such as the Coordinated Firepower change, the change to the Piranha FireStream wing coming/going, etc. It seems like it's just a vote to further-nerf the Piranha formation (whether bringing a unit back at full strength means bringing back dead piranhas or not) and a vote on the Ghostkeel issue.

Oh well, at least the points size thing is being voted, will be interested to see how that turns out.

I hope ghostkeel ruling remains the same tbh. It's still very powerful.

I think overall they did a good job .

I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

 warboss wrote:
I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

No, just the ones that were implemented for LVO.

ITC already did a vote on the Hunter Contingent.

 Frozocrone wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

No, just the ones that were implemented for LVO.

ITC already did a vote on the Hunter Contingent.

But come to think of it, that should also include the coming/going of the Piranhas that wasn't voted, and the ability of a regular riptide to take an Earth Caste Pilot Array

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I hope ghostkeel ruling remains the same tbh. It's still very powerful.

I think overall they did a good job .

You do know that counter-measure only affects 1 unit at a time and not the entire phase, meaning they can use all of them in one turn, 390 points should get to use a special rule 3 times. They are equip with a small blast melta shot or 6 str 7 shots, why is this very powerful? Emphasis being on "very".

This also raises the question are the polls a weaken other armies button, a rules issue, or nerfing tool? All of these things have a good and bad side because you are relying on the voters to do the right thing and we as humans don't necessarily do what is right.

Target wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

No, just the ones that were implemented for LVO.

ITC already did a vote on the Hunter Contingent.

But come to think of it, that should also include the coming/going of the Piranhas that wasn't voted, and the ability of a regular riptide to take an Earth Caste Pilot Array

The piranha question is included but not the hunter contingent.

@Frozo: Yes, they did have a knee jerk vote on the hunter contingent within a week or two iirc of the codex coming out during which I seriously doubt most folks who voted had even seen a tau model let alone actually tested the rule they were over nerfing. The rule needed clarification to trim possible abuse (there were some crazy interpretations of it) but not a complete rewrite that is effectively (but not theoretically) permanent. They should at least allow 30 days of time to pass for folks to actually see if there is an issue in play or at least consider it instead of putting up a biased worded poll just because Frankie had a pair of good games in the week post release. Eh, whatever, they're at least improving with the pirahnas and their knee jerk reaction was just temporary.

 warboss wrote:

Target wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

No, just the ones that were implemented for LVO.

ITC already did a vote on the Hunter Contingent.

But come to think of it, that should also include the coming/going of the Piranhas that wasn't voted, and the ability of a regular riptide to take an Earth Caste Pilot Array

The piranha question is included but not the hunter contingent.

@Frozo: Yes, they did have a knee jerk vote on the hunter contingent within a week or two iirc of the codex coming out during which I seriously doubt most folks who voted had even seen a tau model let alone actually tested the rule they were over nerfing. The rule needed clarification to trim possible abuse (there were some crazy interpretations of it) but not a complete rewrite that is effectively (but not theoretically) permanent. They should at least allow 30 days of time to pass for folks to actually see if there is an issue in play or at least consider it instead of putting up a biased worded poll just because Frankie had a pair of good games in the week post release. Eh, whatever, they're at least improving with the pirahnas and their knee jerk reaction was just temporary.

The Piranha question he is referring to isn't up for vote. ITC decided pre-LVO to nerf Firestream, disallowing them from entering and leaving board in the same turn. Instead of offering a re-vote they included 2 possible nerfs (which will almost certainly take effect). BS to the extreme.

I absolutely do not understand the issue on the Corsairs. - "The Eldar Corsairs Reckless Abandon special rule allows them to move after making a shooting attack. Does this apply to overwatch?"

Reckless Abandon states (page 154, IA11, 2nd Edition) states "A unit which includes only models with this special rule that fires at an enemy unit within 12" of itself may make an immediate move of 6" after all the effects of the shooting attack have been resolved (emphasis mine). If the unit has the type Jet Pack Infantry or Eldar Jetbike, this move is increased to 6+d6". This move cannot place the unit into close combat, within 1" of any enemy unit, or to be used to move closer to any unit targeted by their shooting attacks (emphasis mine).

BRB (page 535 [I have a digital version]) says under Resolve Overwatch that "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack(emphasis mine) (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on."

Overwatch is a normal shooting attack. The Reckless Abandon rule specfically lays out who (a unit composed entirely with the rule), what (a move after shooting), and when (a shooting attack at a unit within 12"). It's a shooting attack. The rules for Overwatch states speficially that it is a shooting attack. This question seeks to change a core rule of the game (that Overwatch is a shooting attack). Why?

In a game where you have now a giant 50 dog unit with IC's that can charge turn 1 that have a footprint that covers the entire board, or a ThunderwolfStar that has 50 attacks and auto-passes Hit and Run with a 2+ Rerollable Cover Save that is immune to psychic powers, is it that game-breaking to have a unit be able to avoid being charged? Seriously?

 djdarknoise wrote:
I absolutely do not understand the issue on the Corsairs. - "The Eldar Corsairs Reckless Abandon special rule allows them to move after making a shooting attack. Does this apply to overwatch?"

Reckless Abandon states (page 154, IA11, 2nd Edition) states "A unit which includes only models with this special rule that fires at an enemy unit within 12" of itself may make an immediate move of 6" after all the effects of the shooting attack have been resolved (emphasis mine). If the unit has the type Jet Pack Infantry or Eldar Jetbike, this move is increased to 6+d6". This move cannot place the unit into close combat, within 1" of any enemy unit, or to be used to move closer to any unit targeted by their shooting attacks (emphasis mine).

BRB (page 535 [I have a digital version]) says under Resolve Overwatch that "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack(emphasis mine) (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on."

Overwatch is a normal shooting attack. The Reckless Abandon rule specfically lays out who (a unit composed entirely with the rule), what (a move after shooting), and when (a shooting attack at a unit within 12"). It's a shooting attack. The rules for Overwatch states speficially that it is a shooting attack. This question seeks to change a core rule of the game (that Overwatch is a shooting attack). Why?

In a game where you have now a giant 50 dog unit with IC's that can charge turn 1 that have a footprint that covers the entire board, or a ThunderwolfStar that has 50 attacks and auto-passes Hit and Run with a 2+ Rerollable Cover Save that is immune to psychic powers, is it that game-breaking to have a unit be able to avoid being charged? Seriously?

There is literally no rhyme or reason to how they come at these poll questions..

Heres a good one that was missed and is actually a big deal, @ LVO ITC made a liberal ruling on Skathach WK and use of Webway Generator. Why wasn't that put up to a vote?

Target wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

No, just the ones that were implemented for LVO.

ITC already did a vote on the Hunter Contingent.

But come to think of it, that should also include the coming/going of the Piranhas that wasn't voted, and the ability of a regular riptide to take an Earth Caste Pilot Array

The riptide is straight up clear the option to take it is no where in the book. The new FSE still doesn't include it. I don't know how much clearer that can be. Only the named has access to that signature system.

gungo wrote:

Target wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

No, just the ones that were implemented for LVO.

ITC already did a vote on the Hunter Contingent.

But come to think of it, that should also include the coming/going of the Piranhas that wasn't voted, and the ability of a regular riptide to take an Earth Caste Pilot Array

The riptide is straight up clear the option to take it is no where in the book. The new FSE still doesn't include it. I don't know how much clearer that can be. Only the named has access to that signature system.

Yes, it is clear. Invisiblity is also clear. 2+ rerollables are also clear, etc, etc. But if you check the LVO Thread (or maybe I'm remembering a conversation I had with him in person at LVO), at one point the ECPA came up and I believe Reece stated he was planning on having it voted - could be wrong, but pretty sure that's the case. I'm pointing it out because I just noticed it was missing, yet I expected to see it. It's not a debate of whether it's correct by RAW - because again, most of these questions aren't rules questions, they're rules *change* questions.

I think the best way to make sure something gets on the ballot is to send it through email:

frankie AT frontlinegaming DOT org

I did this for the Ghostkeel question, although it seems like it's really likely that was making it on anyway... but definitely worth doing!

I didn't on these because I think I just assumed they were already on it and included in the "tau rules questions" and such. Maybe that was the case for everyone and they got missed.

There were 100's of queries. It's quite conceivable that they missed a couple of questions that was asked previously of them.

Or, perhaps they polled the questions that came up the most in frequency?

I think if you still want an answer to a question of yours, keep on asking away. Who knows. Maybe there will be a ITC Q1 Poll Part II.

I thought that the coordinated fire power ruling would be on there also, hopefully they are going to do some more play testing and come up with modifications, I am trying to be positive.

Yeah from feedback they've posted, I'm not sure if they count forum chatter as "frequency" of asking a question... so, best to "officially" ask it by emailing it to them to make sure it gets noted!

There's a ton to keep track of obviously, so if nothing else this would really help with the book-keeping side of things and ease of reference.

 CKO wrote:
I thought that the coordinated fire power ruling would be on there also, hopefully they are going to do some more play testing and come up with modifications, I am trying to be positive.

I wouldn't just hope. I would submit your question to the address the RiTides has provided. If enough people want to revisit the issue it will be back on the ballot. If it's not, it might be that most people have moved on to the newest rule insanity and are fine with how things came out.

I think it's because, and I might be wrong, Reece said they would be reviewing the previous tau rulings. That might be why most people don't seem to have submitted the questions to him from here anyway and why many of us, myself included, are surprised to not see the piranha and hunter cadre questions on the block.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think it's because, and I might be wrong, Reece said they would be reviewing the previous tau rulings. That might be why most people don't seem to have submitted the questions to him from here anyway and why many of us, myself included, are surprised to not see the piranha and hunter cadre questions on the block.

I came to the same conclusion based on what they said during their youtube videos. They knew that their previous poll after only a week or two of the codex being out raised a few eyebrows and I assumed that when they specificied that they'd be including previous Tau rulings that their initial knee jerk badly worded poll would be included. I suppose it's a lesson on not assuming.

 RiTides wrote:
Yeah from feedback they've posted, I'm not sure if they count forum chatter as "frequency" of asking a question... so, best to "officially" ask it by emailing it to them to make sure it gets noted!

There's a ton to keep track of obviously, so if nothing else this would really help with the book-keeping side of things and ease of reference.

I sent him a private message and I sent him a message on Facebook, no response!

I figure I'll just send over an email when I get chance with the questions that didn't make the poll that I thought would. If enough folks do that *politely* they'll probably have a follow up/another one with those issues.

Nothing to do now but vote on these and send feedback for future ones

Agreed, Target! Especially on the polite part lol.

CKO, I don't think messaging Reecius on FB or here is the way to go - proper channels is to email it to Frankie, and I got a response confirming he'd received the feedback and that it was an issue they'd likely be putting into the poll.

Oh hey, while we're at it for Eldar, let's bring up the other question that makes no sense;

"Per RAW, if a Gargantuan Creature with any part of its base is in a piece of terrain which grants a cover save, the Gargantuan Creature gains the save even if no part of it is actually obscured. Do you wish to play this rule this way?" (This is often referred to as the "Toe in Cover" rule.)

GC's are MC's MC's get Toe In Cover. Why would this not apply to GC's? Why are we picking and choosing one part of a core rule while keeping the others? Why again are we looking to change a core rule that literally only affects one army?

Because let's be honest, we're talking about a Wraithknight.

a) no one cares about the Barbed Heirodule
b) Stormsurges can purchase an Invul save that in no way diminishes their ranged shooting output (at a 4+, mind you)
c) The Taunar Armor is banned
d) The Demon GC LOW get an inherent 5+ that can easily be modified to a 2+ invul save.
e) The Codex Wraithknight has to give up the D-cannons to get a 5+ save (yes, I know it gets D in CC, but unlike the Taunar, it loses all decent ranged capability), and the Skathach has to sacrifice a gun AND gets no D in close combat.

So we're literally only talking about taking away Toe in Cover for the Eldar players because the only way they get in a non-armor based save otherwise is to gimp their ranged offensive output with a weaker save than any other GC.

How is that even remotely fair?

Because most people think that GCs being able to toe in cover is a bs rule and makes zero sense? I argue the same thing for MCs, personally, and am probably going to suggest it when I email franky, which I'm probbaly gonna do once the poll results come out and we see the effects of the possible point limit changes.

Wow, and make my poor tyranids even worse in the process

Sorry man, I wish we could make Carnifexes less than a distraction, but we can atleast make them have the same rules as their equally as terrible dreadnought friends .

Ah yes, my other army . But seriously, area terrain is much easier to implement on less elaborate tables, and cover is really crucial for bugs!

I keep scheming a Tyrranocyte list to get my big bugs there safe, but GW just point costed them high enough that it's hard to fit in while keeping enough punch...

 djdarknoise wrote:
Oh hey, while we're at it for Eldar, let's bring up the other question that makes no sense;

"Per RAW, if a Gargantuan Creature with any part of its base is in a piece of terrain which grants a cover save, the Gargantuan Creature gains the save even if no part of it is actually obscured. Do you wish to play this rule this way?" (This is often referred to as the "Toe in Cover" rule.)

GC's are MC's MC's get Toe In Cover. Why would this not apply to GC's? Why are we picking and choosing one part of a core rule while keeping the others? Why again are we looking to change a core rule that literally only affects one army?

Because let's be honest, we're talking about a Wraithknight.

a) no one cares about the Barbed Heirodule
b) Stormsurges can purchase an Invul save that in no way diminishes their ranged shooting output (at a 4+, mind you)
c) The Taunar Armor is banned
d) The Demon GC LOW get an inherent 5+ that can easily be modified to a 2+ invul save.
e) The Codex Wraithknight has to give up the D-cannons to get a 5+ save (yes, I know it gets D in CC, but unlike the Taunar, it loses all decent ranged capability), and the Skathach has to sacrifice a gun AND gets no D in close combat.

So we're literally only talking about taking away Toe in Cover for the Eldar players because the only way they get in a non-armor based save otherwise is to gimp their ranged offensive output with a weaker save than any other GC.

How is that even remotely fair?

They put questions like this on the poll, than they ask questions to further nerf the piranha formation which no one is using anyway lol.

Its hard to please everyone when you start asking questions that are not about op stuff. Its easy to turn on the air when its hot but when your trying to decide if you want the air between 73-76 the task becomes difficult.

 djdarknoise wrote:
Oh hey, while we're at it for Eldar, let's bring up the other question that makes no sense;

"Per RAW, if a Gargantuan Creature with any part of its base is in a piece of terrain which grants a cover save, the Gargantuan Creature gains the save even if no part of it is actually obscured. Do you wish to play this rule this way?" (This is often referred to as the "Toe in Cover" rule.)

GC's are MC's MC's get Toe In Cover. Why would this not apply to GC's? Why are we picking and choosing one part of a core rule while keeping the others? Why again are we looking to change a core rule that literally only affects one army?

Because let's be honest, we're talking about a Wraithknight.

a) no one cares about the Barbed Heirodule
b) Stormsurges can purchase an Invul save that in no way diminishes their ranged shooting output (at a 4+, mind you)
c) The Taunar Armor is banned
d) The Demon GC LOW get an inherent 5+ that can easily be modified to a 2+ invul save.
e) The Codex Wraithknight has to give up the D-cannons to get a 5+ save (yes, I know it gets D in CC, but unlike the Taunar, it loses all decent ranged capability), and the Skathach has to sacrifice a gun AND gets no D in close combat.

So we're literally only talking about taking away Toe in Cover for the Eldar players because the only way they get in a non-armor based save otherwise is to gimp their ranged offensive output with a weaker save than any other GC.

How is that even remotely fair?

It's an issue a lot players bring up. Hence it's on the polls.

Dude, it's not an issue of RAW. That train had left long ago. Rather, it's an issue of How-would-you-like-to-play-it. If the player-base - and I'm talking about the actual people who play in their tournaments and not some joe on the interwebz who has nothing to do with the ITC - complains enough, it will be on the polls.

So if you're part of the ITC and you would like a change, make sure you voice your concerns though the proper channels.

 jy2 wrote:
It's an issue a lot players bring up. Hence it's on the polls.

Dude, it's not an issue of RAW. That train had left long ago. Rather, it's an issue of How-would-you-like-to-play-it. If the player-base - and I'm talking about the actual people who play in their tournaments and not some joe on the interwebz who has nothing to do with the ITC - complains enough, it will be on the polls.

So if you're part of the ITC and you would like a change, make sure you voice your concerns though the proper channels.

But yet any one on the interwebz can vote, doesnt make sense.

Btw, feth the Wraithknight. And this is coming from an Eldar player who owns 5 WK's. I love them, but feth them anyways.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CKO wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
It's an issue a lot players bring up. Hence it's on the polls.

Dude, it's not an issue of RAW. That train had left long ago. Rather, it's an issue of How-would-you-like-to-play-it. If the player-base - and I'm talking about the actual people who play in their tournaments and not some joe on the interwebz who has nothing to do with the ITC - complains enough, it will be on the polls.

So if you're part of the ITC and you would like a change, make sure you voice your concerns though the proper channels.

But yet any one on the interwebz can vote, doesnt make sense.

No, if your email isn't in their database, then it won't count. As long as you have participated in any ITC-approved tourneys, they your vote is good to go.

[conspiracy_hat] it's still interesting what makes it through said proper channels and what doesn't. The pertinent current issue are the stealth tau nerfs inserted before LVO. The official channels seemed to say they would be revisited with a vote, and only one has, while an additional nerf has been added. [/conspiracy_hat]

Sure, people complain about toe in for MCS, but some armies live or die by it. People complain about Grav and daemon summoning, but there haven't been magical rules changes proposed because, frankly, it's part of the game.

Don't get me wrong, they're doing something right, they have one of the biggest events around, but I can't say I agree or am comfortable with the process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The idea that they're limiting to known emails is somewhat troubling. I've participated in events that report to ITC, but I'm not sure my email was connected to it. Sure, you want some accountability, but that seems abuseable/flawed

 jy2 wrote:
No, if your email isn't in their database, then it won't count. As long as you have participated in any ITC-approved tourneys, they your vote is good to go.

I don't think this is accurate - it certainly doesn't say as much anywhere on the poll. Are you sure about that?

As the Evan says above, they would really want to make that more obvious so people use the correct email address. I can't believe this would be the case without saying so on the poll!

 RiTides wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
No, if your email isn't in their database, then it won't count. As long as you have participated in any ITC-approved tourneys, they your vote is good to go.

I don't think this is accurate - it certainly doesn't say as much anywhere on the poll. Are you sure about that?

As the Evan says above, they would really want to make that more obvious so people use the correct email address. I can't believe this would be the case without saying so on the poll!

Actually, I could be wrong in this matter after looking at the poll again.

Oh well, looks like everyone will have say in this.

Jy2 thats good to know that they have a database of our emails but I dont recall having to give my e-mail when I went to an ITC event a couple of months ago.

Like I said everything has its pros and cons because if you have a requirement to vote than outsiders will feel left out and have even more reason not to attend ITC tournaments.

To create a democratic process where its a yes or no question but you don't understand why you have to answer the question in the first place is tricky.

They should create a poll about what questions should be on the poll that would end alot of this conspiracy theory crap.

 FTGTEvan wrote:

The idea that they're limiting to known emails is somewhat troubling. I've participated in events that report to ITC, but I'm not sure my email was connected to it. Sure, you want some accountability, but that seems abuseable/flawed

And on the other extreme, you have vote tampering because the same person has voted more than once with different because the emails are not compared to a database of valid emails. It's a double-edged sword, my friend. Which poison would you choose?

The more transparent "poison" lol like for any vote, ever!

Good to hear there aren't any shenanigans after all . Crisis averted / nothing to see here / move along / etc etc!

 CKO wrote:
Jy2 thats good to know that they have a database of our emails but I dont recall having to give my e-mail when I went to an ITC event a couple of months ago.

Like I said everything has its pros and cons because if you have a requirement to vote than outsiders will feel left out and have even more reason not to attend ITC tournaments.

To create a democratic process where its a yes or no question but you don't understand why you have to answer the question in the first place is tricky.

They should create a poll about what questions should be on the poll that would end alot of this conspiracy theory crap.

The ITC actually requests the TO's to turn in emails as well when they submit their tournament scores. However, whether or not the TO's do that is entirely up to the TO's.

Submitting emails also make the ranking more accurate. For example, if in one tournament, your name is recorded as Steve Johnson, but in another, you are recorded as Steven Johnson, you will actually appear as 2 separate players in the Ranking system. However, if both players had the same email, than it would avoid that confusion.

But anyways, the polls do not say that you have to be in the system so my initial presumption is probably wrong.

 jy2 wrote:

 FTGTEvan wrote:

The idea that they're limiting to known emails is somewhat troubling. I've participated in events that report to ITC, but I'm not sure my email was connected to it. Sure, you want some accountability, but that seems abuseable/flawed

And on the other extreme, you have vote tampering because the same person has voted more than once with different because the emails are not compared to a database of valid emails. It's a double-edged sword, my friend. Which poison would you choose?

Not Google sheets? Other ways to validate identity and reduce ballot stuffing. As was mentioned earlier, that can be at least somewhat identified with a visual scan of submission results. Fact is, either way, with the current technology being used, there are flaws.

If that is the case, not only on the "tampering/spam email" or the fact that it is completely open to everyone, and not just ITC tournament attendees, then this whole thing needs to be scrapped until a system is in place that provides actual probative value.

Because what is being suggested then is a population that is not indicative of the true player base and a sample size that is cannot be trusted to show factual data.

 FTGTEvan wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 FTGTEvan wrote:

The idea that they're limiting to known emails is somewhat troubling. I've participated in events that report to ITC, but I'm not sure my email was connected to it. Sure, you want some accountability, but that seems abuseable/flawed

And on the other extreme, you have vote tampering because the same person has voted more than once with different because the emails are not compared to a database of valid emails. It's a double-edged sword, my friend. Which poison would you choose?

Not Google sheets? Other ways to validate identity and reduce ballot stuffing. As was mentioned earlier, that can be at least somewhat identified with a visual scan of submission results. Fact is, either way, with the current technology being used, there are flaws.

 djdarknoise wrote:
If that is the case, not only on the "tampering/spam email" or the fact that it is completely open to everyone, and not just ITC tournament attendees, then this whole thing needs to be scrapped until a system is in place that provides actual probative value.

Because what is being suggested then is a population that is not indicative of the true player base and a sample size that is cannot be trusted to show factual data.

I don't know what type of fail-safe mechanisms they have in place. I am sure that is one area that they must have considered.

 FTGTEvan wrote:
[conspiracy_hat] but I can't say I agree or am comfortable with the process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The idea that they're limiting to known emails is somewhat troubling. I've participated in events that report to ITC, but I'm not sure my email was connected to it. Sure, you want some accountability, but that seems abuseable/flawed

My problem with most of the criticism levied at the ITC is that people seem to think that by participating in ITC events they are owed something. Be it transparency in the question generation process or an equal treatment of their faction.

The "ITC" is literally 2 guys and whatever resources they can spare from their business to organize it. They receive no direct money from it. Perhaps the larger profile does some advertising for their business, but unless you've purchased something from FLG as a direct result of the ITC, you have little room to complain or make demands.

So if you would like to see improvements, do what TinBane did and help. That guy liked the general of the ITC, but didn't care for the slow process of ranking updates. So he wrote the software that allows scores to be automatically uploaded. I'm not saying you need to know how to code, but you can certainly volunteer your time to sort through question submissions and then post a nice breakdown of many times a question was asked and how many times it needs to be asked to make the poll.

Claiming that FLG is an evil cabal out there to undercut drone and piranha sales is actually not helpful.

If you want conspiracy theories, here's a simple one. FLG wants high participation in ITC tournaments and they want to sell you stuff. Both of those are achieved by doing whatever the majority of players want.

Djdarknoise I dont think its that bad I hope no one would go through such extremes to tilt a ruling to their favor.

Well said, bogalubov.

Remember, these are two guys who are spending time on trying to create a standard for their tournaments but who has to run a business also. They have limited resources, are devoting their time to doing this without getting paid, and who can and will make mistakes also. You, the reader, may think 1 or 2 issues are important that they forgot about, but they are literally dealing with 100's and 100's of issues from 100's of people and with a limit to their time. Sometimes, answering just 1 question from 1 person can take up a lot of time. They aren't omniscient nor are they always in touch with the latest-and-greatest. Basically, they are guys with limited time and resources dealing with the ENTIRE 40K WORLD.

I'd cut them some slack if they forget a question or if they don't answer yours in a timely manner. Their main job is to sell models/mats and do commission painting. Running the tournament is what they do mainly because of the love of the competitive scene and wanting to see it grow.

bogalubov wrote:

 FTGTEvan wrote:
[conspiracy_hat] but I can't say I agree or am comfortable with the process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The idea that they're limiting to known emails is somewhat troubling. I've participated in events that report to ITC, but I'm not sure my email was connected to it. Sure, you want some accountability, but that seems abuseable/flawed

My problem with most of the criticism levied at the ITC is that people seem to think that by participating in ITC events they are owed something. Be it transparency in the question generation process or an equal treatment of their faction.

The "ITC" is literally 2 guys and whatever resources they can spare from their business to organize it. They receive no direct money from it. Perhaps the larger profile does some advertising for their business, but unless you've purchased something from FLG as a direct result of the ITC, you have little room to complain or make demands.

So if you would like to see improvements, do what TinBane did and help. That guy liked the general of the ITC, but didn't care for the slow process of ranking updates. So he wrote the software that allows scores to be automatically uploaded. I'm not saying you need to know how to code, but you can certainly volunteer your time to sort through question submissions and then post a nice breakdown of many times a question was asked and how many times it needs to be asked to make the poll.

Claiming that FLG is an evil cabal out there to undercut drone and piranha sales is actually not helpful.

If you want conspiracy theories, here's a simple one. FLG wants high participation in ITC tournaments and they want to sell you stuff. Both of those are achieved by doing whatever the majority of players want.

Good lord you hit the nail on the head.. preach it brother.

I dont buy that arguement JY2 there are people that are willing to help. They just are afraid to let others hold their baby.

 CKO wrote:
I dont buy that arguement JY2 there are people that are willing to help. They just are afraid to let others hold their baby.

Then try creating a Tournament standard yourself and see how many people you can please.

It's an impossible job.

I know it is impossible so lets stop pretending its perfec!, Its more like its the best they can do type of thing and their efforts are to be acknowledged but dont get upset with players when votes dont go their way when we all know there are flaws that can be exploited. FLG and we the players are victims we both suffer the consequences of someone cheating the system!

Especially when it comes to determining what gets voted on! I unlike you dont live in California and can drive to their store and have casual conversations with them to voice my concerns. I have to send emails, personal messages, Facebook, and write threads the list goes on and it still will not be heard despite being the one that could easily be considered an unfair critic.

 CKO wrote:
I dont buy that arguement JY2 there are people that are willing to help. They just are afraid to let others hold their baby.

That's because you aren't familiar with the work Frontline has had to put in just to make the event happen in the first place, let alone be as successful as it's been. There are a lot of people willing to help, and they do, but there's a certain point where you simply can't rely on volunteer effort, especially not in a relatively small community like competitive 40k.

 CKO wrote:
I know it is impossible so lets stop pretending its perfec!, Its more like its the best they can do type of thing and their efforts are to be acknowledged but dont get upset with players when votes dont go their way when we all know there are flaws that can be exploited. FLG and we the players are victims we both suffer the consequences of someone cheating the system!

Especially when it comes to determining what gets voted on! I unlike you dont live in California and can drive to their store and have casual conversations with them to voice my concerns. I have to send emails, personal messages, Facebook, and write threads the list goes on and it still will not be heard despite being the one that could easily be considered an unfair critic.

You want to have your voice heard? Get other people to email them as well. It is a numbers game. 1 guy complaining about the same thing 10 times bears little weight compared to 10 guys complaining about the same thing once. And have a little patience (or not, I don't really care as it is not my standard). It took numerous polls before they finally had the vote on the GC toe-in-cover issue. The Piranha and HC issue might not have be re-voted on in this poll, but that does not mean it never will. FLG has reversed its decisions before (mycetic spore arc of fire) and as long as enough people brings up the issue, they can again.

But just do it through the proper channels, do it politely and do it with some reasoning.

 DarkLink wrote:

 CKO wrote:
I dont buy that arguement JY2 there are people that are willing to help. They just are afraid to let others hold their baby.

That's because you aren't familiar with the work Frontline has had to put in just to make the event happen in the first place, let alone be as successful as it's been. There are a lot of people willing to help, and they do, but there's a certain point where you simply can't rely on volunteer effort, especially not in a relatively small community like competitive 40k.

I am an anayltical I research for hours I know nearly every website/blog that relates to 40k. I know the humble begainings of Frontline Gaming they have accomplished alot, you cant say I need help but at the same time push people away.

 jy2 wrote:

You want to have your voice heard? Get other people to email them as well. It is a numbers game. 1 guy complaining about the same thing 10 times bears little weight compared to 10 guys complaining about the same thing once. And have a little patience (or not, I don't really care as it is not my standard). It took numerous polls before they finally had the vote on the GC toe-in-cover issue. The Piranha and HC issue might not have be re-voted on in this poll, but that does not mean it never will. FLG has reversed its decisions before (mycetic spore arc of fire) and as long as enough people brings up the issue, they can again.

But just do it through the proper channels, do it politely and do it with some reasoning.

I have created 3 threads in less than a month that all have over 3k views each relating to the ITC, do they not look at the forums?

 CKO wrote:

I have created 3 threads in less than a month that all have over 3k views each relating to the ITC, do they not look at the forums?

The proper channel is to email them or submite a FAQ request on their blog.

Don't assume that just because you have multiple threads on a forum that they will read each one and in detail. I used to write 100's of battle reports on Dakka and Librarium Online but I'm not going to assume that you or anyone else have read my reports.

This proper channel stuff sounds like something Hillary or Donald would say when they are asked a question they dont want to answer!

Will you provide me with their email and a link to the faq request that is on their blog.

jy2 wrote:Submitting emails also make the ranking more accurate. For example, if in one tournament, your name is recorded as Steve Johnson, but in another, you are recorded as Steven Johnson, you will actually appear as 2 separate players in the Ranking system. However, if both players had the same email, than it would avoid that.

If we had a registration system that generated a unique ID for each ITC competitor and allowed them to identify at events that would potentially be even better, especially since using the email address as a unique ID was never widely communicated.

And really, "Johnson?" You couldn't have picked another last name that wasn't a euphemism for a penis? You could have at least gone with Tim. I recall Adam opted for that alias after BAO two years ago.

 CKO wrote:
This proper channel stuff sounds like something Hillary or Donald would say when they are asked a question they dont want to answer!

Will you provide me with their email and a link to the faq request that is on their blog.

ITC 40k Rules Question Submission Form
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform

ITC Questions: Frankie@FrontlineGaming.org


Both were easily found on the FLG website.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 punchdub wrote:

jy2 wrote:Submitting emails also make the ranking more accurate. For example, if in one tournament, your name is recorded as Steve Johnson, but in another, you are recorded as Steven Johnson, you will actually appear as 2 separate players in the Ranking system. However, if both players had the same email, than it would avoid that.

If we had a registration system that generated a unique ID for each ITC competitor and allowed them to identify at events that would potentially be even better, especially since using the email address as a unique ID was never widely communicated.

Which would be another headache they don't need. You would have to have a person looking up those numbers at the tournament for ever one that forgot their ID number, which from personal experience would not be insignificant, plus those who wouldn't have any proof of identity at all.

 CKO wrote:
This proper channel stuff sounds like something Hillary or Donald would say when they are asked a question they dont want to answer!

Will you provide me with their email and a link to the faq request that is on their blog.

Sure!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform

Oops. Ninja'd! Thanks Crimson Devil.

bogalubov wrote:

 FTGTEvan wrote:
[conspiracy_hat] but I can't say I agree or am comfortable with the process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The idea that they're limiting to known emails is somewhat troubling. I've participated in events that report to ITC, but I'm not sure my email was connected to it. Sure, you want some accountability, but that seems abuseable/flawed

My problem with most of the criticism levied at the ITC is that people seem to think that by participating in ITC events they are owed something. Be it transparency in the question generation process or an equal treatment of their faction.

The "ITC" is literally 2 guys and whatever resources they can spare from their business to organize it. They receive no direct money from it. Perhaps the larger profile does some advertising for their business, but unless you've purchased something from FLG as a direct result of the ITC, you have little room to complain or make demands.

So if you would like to see improvements, do what TinBane did and help. That guy liked the general of the ITC, but didn't care for the slow process of ranking updates. So he wrote the software that allows scores to be automatically uploaded. I'm not saying you need to know how to code, but you can certainly volunteer your time to sort through question submissions and then post a nice breakdown of many times a question was asked and how many times it needs to be asked to make the poll.

Claiming that FLG is an evil cabal out there to undercut drone and piranha sales is actually not helpful.

If you want conspiracy theories, here's a simple one. FLG wants high participation in ITC tournaments and they want to sell you stuff. Both of those are achieved by doing whatever the majority of players want.

1.) I would think by calling a section of my post [conspiracy_hat] it would be fairly obvious that it's tongue in cheek. Guess it wasn't clear enough.
2.) what part of hosting a poll for rules changes means people who just participate in events don't have a say? That's somewhat the point. Just because people have critiques for the system doesn't invalidate the points. And they have incorporated feedback before, including improving polling questions and format, so dismissing criticism because it's just two guys working at it is irrelevant. Yes they devote their own time and effort, I don't think people question that. It doesn't mean it can't be made better.

CKO going through the correct channel is easy and they make that info very available. We can't expect them to farm every forum out there looking for specific posts and questions.

I see a glaring problem and possible fix in this vote. The rule for corsairs came up for vote but I don't have that book and don't know the specific rule. I still had to vote....my recommendation is to make an abstain option so when honest people don't know they can choose to not vote on that option. It's bad enough that people are voting to nerf armies...not because the rules but because it's powerful against their armies.

They do read forums, Reecius responded to Orock's thread that was about Tau and engaged with him/her on Dakkadakka.

But you're more likely to get noticed by going through the correct channels.

I like that abstain option although it's just as easy to write the rule in the question.

I think engaging in a discussion is different from submitting issues for the poll, though - it took me a little while to realize this, to be honest but that's why I've been posting the email quite often in these threads. If you really want your question "counted", you've got to make sure to email it!

Logistically, I can see why this would be necessary... it's just a lot to juggle already and submitting the form or just sending an email is likely a lot easier for them to track.

Yep, so that's what I'll start doing as well RiTides, I submitted the following to the frankie email address above.

Frankie,

Just voted in the poll and expected to see a few Tau questions that weren't included, so figured I'd submit them here for the "if there are enough people asking they'll get answered" docket. I didn't previously since I thought they'd be included in the lumped-together "tau rulings" you guys mentioned, apologies for not submitting prior to the poll.

1) Can a Riptide other than O'Vesa take the Earth Caste Pilot Array Signature system. RAW this is not allowed, however I believe there was discussion of giving them an allowance (or voting to do so) since it seemed an oversight by GW.

2) Piranha's from the Firestream Wing, by RAW they can leave in the same turn they enter. There was a FAQ entry added without vote prior to the LVO restricting this, could we get a vote on this?

3) Coordinated Firepower Ruling - Revote Request. This issue was voted prior to much playtesting/seeing how impactful it was and I was hoping it would be revoted at a later date as stated it might be. For what it's worth, I'd like to see the middle ground ruling occur, which is more or less: only shots fired at the target of the coordinated firepower attack receive the associated buffs, but buffs do transfer.

If you'd like full text or example question text on any of these, don't hesitate to ask.

Cheers,

Andrew

Its bit odd, but they seem to have changed their ruling for "a 2++ reroll able is only passed on a second roll of 4+"

to : every 2+ reroll able save of any kind, or to hit or wound, the 2nd roll is on a 4+"

while rerolling a 2++ is indeed a positive change,

I think that should have come to a vote, people have ways to deal with cover/armour and bs5/pre enemy doesn't need a nerf.

Its a bit like their rules change that levitate can be used to get out of combat, just why? why!>? uneeded rules changes are just bloat at this point.

 easysauce wrote:
Its bit odd, but they seem to have changed their ruling for "a 2++ reroll able is only passed on a second roll of 4+"

to : every 2+ reroll able save of any kind, or to hit or wound, the 2nd roll is on a 4+"

while rerolling a 2++ is indeed a positive change,

I think that should have come to a vote, people have ways to deal with cover/armour and bs5/pre enemy doesn't need a nerf.

Its a bit like their rules change that levitate can be used to get out of combat, just why? why!>? uneeded rules changes are just bloat at this point.

What are you talking about? I don't see in the FAQ or anywhere else that anything other than saves are affected.

ITC FAQ wrote:
Modified Saves
2+ Rerollable Saves:
For ITC format events, any saving throw of a 2+ that can be rerolled, if the first roll is failed, the reroll is failed on a roll of a 1,2 or 3.

Pythius Primus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Its bit odd, but they seem to have changed their ruling for "a 2++ reroll able is only passed on a second roll of 4+"

to : every 2+ reroll able save of any kind, or to hit or wound, the 2nd roll is on a 4+"

while rerolling a 2++ is indeed a positive change,

I think that should have come to a vote, people have ways to deal with cover/armour and bs5/pre enemy doesn't need a nerf.

Its a bit like their rules change that levitate can be used to get out of combat, just why? why!>? uneeded rules changes are just bloat at this point.

What are you talking about? I don't see in the FAQ or anywhere else that anything other than saves are affected.

ITC FAQ wrote:
Modified Saves
2+ Rerollable Saves:
For ITC format events, any saving throw of a 2+ that can be rerolled, if the first roll is failed, the reroll is failed on a roll of a 1,2 or 3.

Had a friend get multiple FAQ writing judges rule it that way at the LVO


Maybe things changed since then to just "saves" vs ++ saves, still should be a vote as saves/cover are easily ignored.



here the cap

I have read so many things on the internet about the ITC faq that are just not true. It's amazing.

as much as I dislike ITC, I still am forced to play with it durring local tournaments. Anyone who votes for advantage are simply scum.

I voted to:

-limit the maximum number of detachments to three

-only go to four if the number of detachments were increased

-track factions based on the faction that had the largest number of points allotted in an army

-use less than 1850 points at larger ITC events

-use 1650 points at larger ITC events

-disallow the Tau Tidewall as a Fortification Network

-not allow Gargantuan Creatures to "toe in cover"

-limit a unit of Ghostkeel's to only one use of the Holophoton Countermeasures

-do not allow Piranhas to come back from the dead as part of their formation

-not count immobilized Piranhas as destroyed

-not allow the Reckless Abandon special rule to apply to Overwatch

-allow Chaos Knights to take Legacies of Ruin

Again, the big Tau changes for the LVO were on the ballot. As I think the changes were valid and did not dramatically impact Tau's ability to compete in the ITC, I voted for the changes to go ahead.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I voted to:
-do not allow Piranhas to come back from the dead as part of their formation

Again, the big Tau changes for the LVO were on the ballot. As I think the changes were valid and did not dramatically impact Tau's ability to compete in the ITC, I voted for the changes to go ahead.

Unsure if you're aware, but you then voted to *further* nerf the piranha formation past what it was nerfed to at LVO, you did not vote for the existing changes to go ahead. At LVO they removed their ability to come/go in the same turn, which is not on this ballot, but their preliminary reading of the rule was that dead ones do come back, because the rule states "the unit returns at full strength, with any drones/missiles replaced".

What was your reasoning behind voting to further nerf them, if I may ask?

Target wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I voted to:
-do not allow Piranhas to come back from the dead as part of their formation

Again, the big Tau changes for the LVO were on the ballot. As I think the changes were valid and did not dramatically impact Tau's ability to compete in the ITC, I voted for the changes to go ahead.

Unsure if you're aware, but you then voted to *further* nerf the piranha formation past what it was nerfed to at LVO, you did not vote for the existing changes to go ahead. At LVO they removed their ability to come/go in the same turn, which is not on this ballot, but their preliminary reading of the rule was that dead ones do come back, because the rule states "the unit returns at full strength, with any drones/missiles replaced".

What was your reasoning behind voting to further nerf them, if I may ask?

Fear!

I don't see any reason why you would want to nerf a unit like the ghostkeels who have little fire power, by restricting us Tau players they are encouraging us to play riptide wings and forge world experimental riptides, which is a lot worse ironically. Your going to see more players using riptide wings and drone net and that's it.

I copy and pasted your question and sent it to their blog thing.

 easysauce wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Its bit odd, but they seem to have changed their ruling for "a 2++ reroll able is only passed on a second roll of 4+"

to : every 2+ reroll able save of any kind, or to hit or wound, the 2nd roll is on a 4+"

while rerolling a 2++ is indeed a positive change,

I think that should have come to a vote, people have ways to deal with cover/armour and bs5/pre enemy doesn't need a nerf.

Its a bit like their rules change that levitate can be used to get out of combat, just why? why!>? uneeded rules changes are just bloat at this point.

What are you talking about? I don't see in the FAQ or anywhere else that anything other than saves are affected.

ITC FAQ wrote:
Modified Saves
2+ Rerollable Saves:
For ITC format events, any saving throw of a 2+ that can be rerolled, if the first roll is failed, the reroll is failed on a roll of a 1,2 or 3.

Had a friend get multiple FAQ writing judges rule it that way at the LVO


Maybe things changed since then to just "saves" vs ++ saves, still should be a vote as saves/cover are easily ignored.



here the cap

*snipped image*

What is that a screen capture of? I can't find any verbiage like that anywhere on the Frontline site. (Also, did you take a photo of the screen with your camera instead of a screenshot? )

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Again, the big Tau changes for the LVO were on the ballot. As I think the changes were valid and did not dramatically impact Tau's ability to compete in the ITC, I voted for the changes to go ahead.

No tau was in the top 8 despite having a new codex and already being considered a powerful codex. If a powerful codex gets an update it should top 8 but it didn't because the good players chose not to use ghostkeels because of the nerf, riptides could not take its signature system, and no one was dum enough to bring the piranha formation after its nerf.

That's the point you don't know what those units could do because they were nerf before any one could use them and now your voting to keep it the same despite having no data. Did target use any of the things that you are voting on? The answer is no if the rulings were differently he might have used them.

It impacted Tau because Tau didn't use them, the players elected not to take the nerf units! Would you take a unit or formation that was nerf to a grand tournament?

In all seriousness I do believe most of the issue with the polls isn't some crazy conspiracy theory. Yes, I'd love it if they were more transparent like some folks have said, Yes, I'd love it if the questions at times were a bit better worded. But end of day neither of those things are physical ballots in boxes. The real issue in my mind is: the polls need to provide more background information on the issue, and/or, the average voter needs to be more informed (I see this as sadly unlikely). If you look at the case of "TheNewBlood" - I'm going to guess he may not even have attended LVO, he made an assumption about what the LVO FAQ did to the Piranha formation, and - without checking it - went ahead and voted for what he thought was "keep them with the same nerfs" and instead voted "nerf them more". Good intentions, bad results.

I think this is far more common then we'll admit. We see a poll, we're interested in a couple issues, we take swings at the rest without being very informed. That's not a recipe for success on rulings. End of the day, I think this is like the "do we cut points or how do we fix the games not finishing problem" we've seen debated. You have two options:

1) Tell players to play faster /// Tell players to be more informed and do more research before voting

or, if you can't expect the above to work in any meaningful way (you can't), you tackle the problem a different way

2) Reduce points, Increase round time, etc. /// Provide detailed background in each poll question, and improve wording on each, prior to releasing (do the research for the respondent)

 CKO wrote:
That's the point you don't know what those units could do because they were nerf before any one could use them and now your voting to keep it the same despite having no data. Did target use any of the things that you are voting on? The answer is no if the rulings were differently he might have used them.

It impacted Tau because Tau didn't use them, the players elected not to take the nerf units! Would you take a unit or formation that was nerf to a grand tournament?

@CKO...I still took basically all of the things that were nerfed to LVO . By the time I learned these were nerfed (monday night, 2 days before i flew out, they had been faq changed but not announced the preceding Friday), it was a bit too late. I'd built, painted, and practiced with that army, and beyond that, I just liked it. You don't have double digit numbers of piranhas painted and sitting around and not like them

What was your army list Target?

From memory, since I don't have a copy at work:

Dawnblade Contingent (source 1)

Retaliation Cadre [s1]
Commander, 2x plasma, target lock
3x Solo Crisis with 2x Cyclic Ion Blaster
3x Broadside with early warning override
1x Riptide: Ion, SMS, interceptor

Piranha Wing [s1]
1 Piranha
2 Piranha
3 Piranha
3 Piranha

Optimized Stealth Cadre [s2]
2x Ghostkeel, Cyclic Ion Rakers/TL Fusions, 1 Target Lock
3 Stealth suits (I think 1 fusion per unit?)
3 Stealth suits (I think 1 fusion per unit?)

Aspect Host [s3]
5 spiders
5 spiders
5 spiders

That's about right iirc. Was a lot of fun to play, the existing nerfs definitely hurt some, but originally I planned on doing a suit-based coordinated firepower army. Those are now back on the shelf. Then I decided to get back out my piranhas and try out ghostkeels, and they got hit near the end. Piranhas Ive loved forever, and even ran 8 at the last LVO, so the nerf didn't bother me as much on the coming/going. Removing their ability to come back at full strength...kind of kills the remaining purpose of the formation.

I voted for them to keep the regaining of dead models, though not of immobilized models. It's basically a slightly worse version of old RP, as I understand it, and isn't really that powerful.

To be honest, I didn't understand the second Piranha question on the ballot. If you vote to count immobilized Piranhas as destroyed, what does that mean?

I'm guessing, if the first question is voted that destroyed Piranhas return, then they return with the rest. But what if the first question is voted that destroyed Piranhas don't return... is the second question then irrelevant (similar to the points question earlier, that is dependent on the first question of whether or not to lower points, followed by the exact value to lower them to)?

 CKO wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Again, the big Tau changes for the LVO were on the ballot. As I think the changes were valid and did not dramatically impact Tau's ability to compete in the ITC, I voted for the changes to go ahead.

No tau was in the top 8 despite having a new codex and already being considered a powerful codex. If a powerful codex gets an update it should top 8 but it didn't because the good players chose not to use ghostkeels because of the nerf, riptides could not take its signature system, and no one was dum enough to bring the piranha formation after its nerf.

That's the point you don't know what those units could do because they were nerf before any one could use them and now your voting to keep it the same despite having no data. Did target use any of the things that you are voting on? The answer is no if the rulings were differently he might have used them.

It impacted Tau because Tau didn't use them, the players elected not to take the nerf units! Would you take a unit or formation that was nerf to a grand tournament?

Eldar didn't win any major tournaments until the LVO with their new codex. Nobody disputed that Eldar weren't colossally overpowered then. Player skill and luck of the dice has more to do with top 8 pairings than anything else.

The reason Tau did not make top 8 is because their codex is still relatively fresh and people are still adapting to the best ways to play the book. The ITC nerfs are in place to provide a fair playing ground for the non-Tau players.

 RiTides wrote:
To be honest, I didn't understand the second Piranha question on the ballot. If you vote to count immobilized Piranhas as destroyed, what does that mean?

I'm guessing, if the first question is voted that destroyed Piranhas return, then they return with the rest. But what if the first question is voted that destroyed Piranhas don't return... is the second question then irrelevant (similar to the points question earlier, that is dependent on the first question of whether or not to lower points, followed by the exact value to lower them to)?

That's correct. If it counts as destroyed, then it comes back in with the unit. You could theoretically spawn more piranhas that way. Say if 1 piranha lands on terrain and immobilizes itself and then the unit leaves. If it counts as dead, then the unit will come back as 3 piranhas and you'd have a 4th piranha on the table (though immobilized). This could be a viable tactic, especially if you purposefully immobilize yourself on an objective.

Now if it wasn't counted as dead, then the unit leaves and when it comes back in, it would only return as 2 piranhas, plus the immobilized piranha on the table for a total of 3 piranhas.

Man, that might should have been laid out a little more (like you just did!). Not sure I voted how I intended on that one, to be honest!

What is the point of the formation if you cant come back with new piranhas?

If they kill 3 of 5, you leave come back with 2 piranhas you create 4 new drones! What is the point?

Some one please tell me why you would use the formation if you cannot get back the piranhas? They have 2 hp so you literally gain the ability to get back 1 hp.

This statement I am about to make is bias and I should not say it but I am going to word it in a way where it isn't as harsh but, it gets my point across since ITC originated from the westcoast.

How many players from the west coast is representing the United States in worlds?

Please don't drag that into this....

You do realize that literally all of the questions that they put up for the poll.....are actually Frequently Asked Questions, right? It really is that simple.

The ruling on the WK's movement maybe could have been put up for clarification; however Forge World did release a statement via email saying that the 12" move was an error on their part. Which makes sense - there is literally no reason ever to use that function if it scatters. "Oh wait I moved 12" and then scattered 12" directly back to where I started? Good plan guys let's do it again!"

 CKO wrote:
What is the point of the formation if you cant come back with new piranhas?

If they kill 3 of 5, you leave come back with 2 piranhas you create 4 new drones! What is the point?

Some one please tell me why you would use the formation if you cannot get back the piranhas? They have 2 hp so you literally gain the ability to get back 1 hp.

How many players from the west coast is representing the United States in worlds?

What's the point of the new Ork Decurion giving the exact same benefits as one of its sub-formations? What's the point of the Cadian formation providing a new order that's basically a worse version of an existing order?

Besides if your piranhas stay on the table for multiple turns and you use positioning to change up which ones take small amounts of damage, you can get like 2-3 hull points back in one go!

Its how the questions are presented that's the problem. Why not copy and paste the rule, than ask the question?

If you don't have a Tau codex and know nothing about Tau and you are asked:

How many times can a unit of Tau Ghostkeels containing more than one Ghostkeel activate their Holophoton Countermeasures?

Conflict: The Holophoton Countermeasures rule indicates that the rule is activated on both a per model and per unit basis, creating ambiguity.

You don't even know what a countermeasure is! I guess that explains why they would like to write the articles but they are persuasive so just write the rule and ask the question.

bogalubov wrote:
Besides if your piranhas stay on the table for multiple turns and you use positioning to change up which ones take small amounts of damage, you can get like 2-3 hull points back in one go!

They have 2 hp, open top, and side armor 10 the chances of them surviving is extremely low the chances of doing exactly one hp with units such as eldar jetbikes with 12 str 6 shots, 10 str 6 shots from warp spiders, 10 grav-cannon shots is very low. Even with jink the unit is not durable to take away the ability to come back is essentially banning this formation.

Why not ask do you want to ban the piranha formation? Its basically house rules with a democratic front to justify their rulings. That's fine by me I just need to swallow that pill and keep it moving and stop creating stress for the people that feel like they are safer with these rules than without them. I understand changing op stuff but this is not the case.

I voted for them to come back but not if immobilised because I don't think it was meant for spawning more piranhas and it's just a cheesy shenanigan that makes no sense if someone is trying to immobilize themselves to summon extra units.

However it's an interesting tactic to prevent missle and drone spam by just immobilizing them.

gungo wrote:
I voted for them to come back but not if immobilised because I don't think it was meant for spawning more piranhas and it's just a cheesy shenanigan that makes no sense if someone is trying to immobilize themselves to summon extra units.

However it's an interesting tactic to prevent missle and drone spam by just immobilizing them.

Its an interesting tactic to not even see it by voting against it!

 CKO wrote:

gungo wrote:
I voted for them to come back but not if immobilised because I don't think it was meant for spawning more piranhas and it's just a cheesy shenanigan that makes no sense if someone is trying to immobilize themselves to summon extra units.

However it's an interesting tactic to prevent missle and drone spam by just immobilizing them.

Its an interesting tactic to not even see it by voting against it!

The piranha detschment is stil extremely viable every other turn because it allows you to spam missiles as well which you normally wouldn't be able to use is you are just phasing in and out of existence in the movement phase. Come on the board let loose ur drones, fire your missiles, then leave the board next turn, they are basically invulnerable units since they keep respawning every other turn. In a game where 90% of the time you are only ever getting to turn 5 in a tournament you also have plenty of opportunity to pop on the board and claim objectives turn 5. It's hardly a crappy formation.

gungo wrote:

 CKO wrote:

gungo wrote:
I voted for them to come back but not if immobilised because I don't think it was meant for spawning more piranhas and it's just a cheesy shenanigan that makes no sense if someone is trying to immobilize themselves to summon extra units.

However it's an interesting tactic to prevent missle and drone spam by just immobilizing them.

Its an interesting tactic to not even see it by voting against it!

The piranha detschment is stil extremely viable every other turn because it allows you to spam missiles as well which you normally wouldn't be able to use is you are just phasing in and out of existence in the movement phase. Come on the board let loose ur drones, fire your missiles, then leave the board next turn, they are basically invulnerable units since they keep respawning every other turn. In a game where 90% of the time you are only ever getting to turn 5 in a tournament you also have plenty of opportunity to pop on the board and claim objectives turn 5. It's hardly a crappy formation.

By taking away the ability to enter and leave board at the same time AND taking away the ability to respawn dead Piranhas, you've turned the formation from a very good one to a pretty mediocre one. Piranhas are pretty paper thin and with no respawn they are far less attractive.. not to mention that the respawn is RAW and most likely RAI (remember that the rule had been printed before and it explicitly states that dead piranhas come back to life.) I would have loved to see FLG post that image along with the question.

gungo wrote:

 CKO wrote:

gungo wrote:
I voted for them to come back but not if immobilised because I don't think it was meant for spawning more piranhas and it's just a cheesy shenanigan that makes no sense if someone is trying to immobilize themselves to summon extra units.

However it's an interesting tactic to prevent missle and drone spam by just immobilizing them.

Its an interesting tactic to not even see it by voting against it!

The piranha detschment is stil extremely viable every other turn because it allows you to spam missiles as well which you normally wouldn't be able to use is you are just phasing in and out of existence in the movement phase. Come on the board let loose ur drones, fire your missiles, then leave the board next turn, they are basically invulnerable units since they keep respawning every other turn. In a game where 90% of the time you are only ever getting to turn 5 in a tournament you also have plenty of opportunity to pop on the board and claim objectives turn 5. It's hardly a crappy formation.

It actually becomes quite crappy if the vote further nerfs it beyond how it was played at LVO by not letting it bring dead ones back to life. You have to keep in mind - Piranhas are already a relatively weak, joke unit. Certain people may love and swear by them, myself included, but in general these are *not* power units. They're a unit you almost never saw during 6th and 7th for a reason, and only as suicide single melta teams in 4th/5th. We aren't talking about reducing the effectiveness of a formation that gives scatterbikes a ton of free benefits, or that buffs grav centurions - we're talking about Piranhas. The discussion needs perspective in this case.

Add in that the formation literally states "The unit returns at full strength, with any .... replaced and HP restored" and it's pretty clear what full strength means. If that isn't enough, while most people may not realize it, and it wasn't mentioned in the poll, this formation has been around for years - in the War Zone Damocles book, its an apoc formation. The wording of the rule was *identical* except they added (e.g. five models) after full strength in order to explain exactly what they meant - and this is how everyone played it. They removed the explanatory text - but changed nothing else - because the unit size is no longer locked at 5 models as it was previously, and suddenly we're discussing what "full strength" means. If I gave you a unit of 5 tyranid warriors and three died and said "return the unit at full strength" would you place back 2 models with full wounds? No, you'd place back five models. Squadrons work identically.

This is the problem with uninformed voting, and with polls that aren't doing the research for their respondents. People are voting against these things because they read on the internet it's really good. In reality, I believe a total of two tau players were willing to take the nerfed (can't come/go same turn) piranha formation to LVO - myself and Israel - and neither of us exactly burnt down the world with it, nor did I have any opponents complain about it. Now we're voting to nerf it further.

And to be clear, I don't place this entirely, or even mostly, on the heads of the ITC - yes, they need to provide more information/word things better, but the responsibility is on the people voting to actually be informed, and at present, they're not.

I don't think the vote is going to remove respawning and I agree removing respawning makes the formation uncompetitive. The only rule I can see going either way is the immobilize result and I think a lot of people didn't understand the question even though it was written fairly clearly. That can go either way and in the end it wouldn't be game breaking just a dumb tactic.

gungo wrote:
I don't think the vote is going to remove respawning and I agree removing respawning makes the formation uncompetitive. The only rule I can see going either way is the immobilize result and I think a lot of people didn't understand the question even though it was written fairly clearly. That can go either way and in the end it wouldn't be game breaking just a dumb tactic.

While I hope you're right, I think you're going to be surprised (or maybe I'll just be proven to be a pessimist ) with the results.

Take thenewbloods earlier statement - he voted to nerf them further because he thought that was how they were played at lvo and he was just voting for the nerf to stay in place. He also thought they "did fine". Not only was it not how they were played at lvo, they were almost absent anyhow!

gungo wrote:
I don't think the vote is going to remove respawning and I agree removing respawning makes the formation uncompetitive. The only rule I can see going either way is the immobilize result and I think a lot of people didn't understand the question even though it was written fairly clearly. That can go either way and in the end it wouldn't be game breaking just a dumb tactic.

So you voted not to remove the respawn I take it?

I voted to keep respawn except when its immobilized and abandoned. That way it's not a free summoned unit where people play odd tactics of trying to immobilize thier piranha to summon more models.

You have to keep in mind - Piranhas are already a relatively weak, joke unit

Just to pitch the other side of this. At the LVO I played against the new Piranha formation (paired with double riptide wing) and could do nothing against it. It's hardly a joke.

My opponent came on the board and dropped his drones and fired his missiles. Survived my return fire (because I had nothing that can reliably take out 6 hull points worth of jinking armour) and then left the board to do the same thing all over again when he came back on the board.

So no. It's not a joke unit. A ton of missiles and kill-point-free drones that zoom up the board and create screens are a pain to deal with.

 The Everliving wrote:

You have to keep in mind - Piranhas are already a relatively weak, joke unit

Just to pitch the other side of this. At the LVO I played against the new Piranha formation (paired with double riptide wing) and could do nothing against it. It's hardly a joke.

My opponent came on the board and dropped his drones and fired his missiles. Survived my return fire (because I had nothing that can reliably take out 6 hull points worth of jinking armour) and then left the board to do the same thing all over again when he came back on the board.

So no. It's not a joke unit. A ton of missiles and kill-point-free drones that zoom up the board and create screens are a pain to deal with.

Well, he was referring to Piranhas in a vacuum, no formation rules applied. When looked upon in that context I would say they are relatively weak. Not bad, per se, but weaker than many other Tau options. The formation makes them very good, but too good? I don't think so, at least not in a world of unmitigated Warp Spiders, Wraithknights, Scatbikes, Grav Cents, Battle Companies, Grimoire'd Daemons, Decurion Necron units (esp the nearly invincible Wraiths that you took), etc. When observed against those things, I would hardly call the Piranha formation broken. PITA, yes, but broken no. I just recently played against it and while I lost it was a very close game and I at no point felt that the Piranhas were single-handedly turning the tide.

For competitive play all that really matters is the formation. No one is going to run them stock.

What Dozer Blades said.

The debate is not about stock Piranhas. It's about the formation.

His reply was totally evasive to the point of being downright misleading.

 The Everliving wrote:
What Dozer Blades said.

The debate is not about stock Piranhas. It's about the formation.

I was talking about Piranhas, just the unit itself. To make the point that while the formation is good, it's not insane, and it's already been toned down. We aren't discussing a formation that further buffs an already crazy unit, we're talking about a formation that buffs a relatively weak unit. If you remove all of the formation benefits, it starts to get a bit silly.


And let's also point out Alex - you won that game (i think, since your only lost was sean) with your Necron Decurion. That piranha wing, under the LVO nerf of no come/go in the same turn, did not single-handedly break the game. It was good, yes. It wasn't "lets remove its other ability that it clearly has by raw" good.

I don't think you understand how brutal and broken the formation is when left untouched.

Unnerfed, there is nothing you can do. Fact. Each turn, drones are dropped and Pirahnas leave. Each turn, more and more shots are added to the board, which in turn means more wounds, which in turn means more pinning tests to make, which lead to more failures, which leads to more board control, more models, more shots...you see where this is going?

As for destroyed and immobilized Piranhas, what if you dedicate all your fire power to one unit and it's still not enough to remove the unit? Next turn, they leave and you take casualties, which makes it even harder to remove the formation.

 Frozocrone wrote:
I don't think you understand how brutal and broken the formation is when left untouched.

Unnerfed, there is nothing you can do. Fact. Each turn, drones are dropped and Pirahnas leave. Each turn, more and more shots are added to the board, which in turn means more wounds, which in turn means more pinning tests to make, which lead to more failures, which leads to more board control, more models, more shots...you see where this is going?

As for destroyed and immobilized Piranhas, what if you dedicate all your fire power to one unit and it's still not enough to remove the unit? Next turn, they leave and you take casualties, which makes it even harder to remove the formation.

.....
.....
It's already been nerfed so that the Piranha cannot come onto board and leave board in the same turn, which is the biggest contributor to their "invincibility." Without that ability, the Piranhas are able to be engaged.

See the last part. I'm aware that the reserve come and go is sticking.

 Frozocrone wrote:
See the last part. I'm aware that the reserve come and go is sticking.

That nerf makes them able to be engaged.

Im not arguing that this formation isn't good, it's very good, but there are many very good formations and not all of them get treated like this one is being treated. As to any conversation concerning it's "brokenness" or power-level, we will never know how powerful the formation was because it was pre-emptively struck with a nerf bat. And while GT results may not offer perfect litmus tests, I'd argue that the lack of Firestreams at LVO highlights the issues of pre-emptively nerfing something.

And let's also point out Alex - you won that game (i think, since your only lost was sean) with your Necron Decurion. That piranha wing, under the LVO nerf of no come/go in the same turn, did not single-handedly break the game. It was good, yes. It wasn't "lets remove its other ability that it clearly has by raw" good.

Yes, I did win that game. And I didn't claim that the formation was broken under the LVO nerf. I was simply putting forward the point that the formation wasn't a joke and in capable hands can still do well, even with the downgrade the LVO gave it.

 The Everliving wrote:

And let's also point out Alex - you won that game (i think, since your only lost was sean) with your Necron Decurion. That piranha wing, under the LVO nerf of no come/go in the same turn, did not single-handedly break the game. It was good, yes. It wasn't "lets remove its other ability that it clearly has by raw" good.

Yes, I did win that game. And I didn't claim that the formation was broken under the LVO nerf. I was simply putting forward the point that the formation wasn't a joke and in capable hands can still do well, even with the downgrade the LVO gave it.

That is a reasonable assertion and I think Target and I would both agree, however if there is a second downgrade, I'm not sure the formation will be very formidable and will fall instead into the average category, being taken by players who already have and would like to field Piranhas.

 The Everliving wrote:

And let's also point out Alex - you won that game (i think, since your only lost was sean) with your Necron Decurion. That piranha wing, under the LVO nerf of no come/go in the same turn, did not single-handedly break the game. It was good, yes. It wasn't "lets remove its other ability that it clearly has by raw" good.

Yes, I did win that game. And I didn't claim that the formation was broken under the LVO nerf. I was simply putting forward the point that the formation wasn't a joke and in capable hands can still do well, even with the downgrade the LVO gave it.

Agree, but my point is more - the current poll is to nerf that formation even further. And I agree with your assessment exactly - even with the downgrade under the ITC faq, it can still do well in capable hands. But if I were reading the description of a formation that was up for another nerf I wouldn't expect it to be "in capable hands it can still do well, do you want to nerf it more?" and see as many "hell yeahs!" as I do.

 The Everliving wrote:

You have to keep in mind - Piranhas are already a relatively weak, joke unit

Just to pitch the other side of this. At the LVO I played against the new Piranha formation (paired with double riptide wing) and could do nothing against it. It's hardly a joke.

My opponent came on the board and dropped his drones and fired his missiles. Survived my return fire (because I had nothing that can reliably take out 6 hull points worth of jinking armour) and then left the board to do the same thing all over again when he came back on the board.

So no. It's not a joke unit. A ton of missiles and kill-point-free drones that zoom up the board and create screens are a pain to deal with.

Turn 1:They Shoot the originals
Turn 2:They Leave
Turn 3:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles
Turn 4:They Leave
Turn 5:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles
Turn 6:They Leave
Turn 7:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles

They gain 2 uses of seeker missiles in a game that last 5 turns. You have 2 turns to take out marker light sources, do you know what a seeker missile is without a markerlight a bs 3 Hunter Killer Missile! Do you know what a Hunter Killer Missile is, most likely not you will have to look it up because its an upgrade that Imperial Players don't use.

What happens when warp spiders shoot at this unit of piranhas with seeker missiles do they jink? If they do they fire at bs 1 regardless if they use a marker light or not another nerf that ITC blessed Tau with but I actually like that one! So they shoot 10 bs 5 str 6 shots at side armor 10 if they jink they lose seeker missile use if they don't math says 4-5 hull points with possible explosions due to being open top so at a minimum you kill 2 piranhas. Do you know how much a 5 man piranha unit with 10 seeker missiles cost 280, do you know how much the bs 5 warp spiders cost 105 points. If I take 2 warp spider units 210 points and shoot at this unit 280 point unit numbers say they are dead unless they jink which they lose their fire power I wrote an article on this formation the formation is good broken no!

In my opinion there is pride involve with the decision to nerf this formation even further. I wrote a thread about ITC Flaws at the same time as their LVO event was happening that put some negative light on the ITC and it wasn't even the purpose of the thread. I than write a thread about the Piranha formation to show why its not broken and players do not understand it, I than receive a lot of hate and I think maybe I am being to hard on the ITC I than try to eradicate my mistake by making another thread called ITC Flawless and its immediately shutdown. I than try to contact them to explain the situation I get no response but when the poll comes out they randomly have a question asking do you want to nerf the piranha formation even further!

I don't have pride I have confidence the fact that this question is even on the poll speaks volumes to me, I know it can all be conceive a different way and I will be made to look a certain way but do confident individuals care about the way others think they look!? I will continue to do what I feel is right, am I wrong for fighting for an army I don't play?

 CKO wrote:


They gain 2 uses of seeker missiles in a game that last 5 turns. You have 2 turns to take out marker light sources, do you know what a seeker missile is without a markerlight a bs 3 Hunter Killer Missile! Do you know what a Hunter Killer Missile is, most likely not you will have to look it up because its an upgrade that Imperial Players don't use.

What happens when warp spiders shoot at this unit of piranhas with seeker missiles do they jink? If they do they fire at bs 1 regardless if they use a marker light or not another nerf that ITC blessed Tau with but I actually like that one! So they shoot 10 bs 5 str 6 shots at side armor 10 if they jink they lose seeker missile use if they don't math says 4-5 hull points with possible explosions due to being open top so at a minimum you kill 2 piranhas. Do you know how much a 5 man piranha unit with 10 seeker missiles cost 280, do you know how much the bs 5 warp spiders cost 105 points. If I take 2 warp spider units 210 points and shoot at this unit 280 point unit numbers say they are dead unless they jink which they lose their fire power I wrote an article on this formation the formation is good broken no!

In my opinion there is pride involve with the decision to nerf this formation even further. I wrote a thread about ITC Flaws at the same time as their LVO event was happening that put some negative light on the ITC and it wasn't even the purpose of the thread. I than write a thread about the Piranha formation to show why its not broken and players do not understand it, I than receive a lot of hate and I think maybe I am being to hard on the ITC I than try to eradicate my mistake by making another thread called ITC Flawless and its immediately shutdown. I than try to contact them to explain the situation I get no response but when the poll comes out they randomly have a question asking do you want to nerf the piranha formation even further!

I don't have pride I have confidence the fact that this question is even on the poll speaks volumes to me, I know it can all be conceive a different way and I will be made to look a certain way but do confident individuals care about the way others think they look!? I will continue to do what I feel is right, am I wrong for fighting for an army I don't play?

I'm not sure you're understanding the situation here... There's no downside to the Piranhas jinking, they fire their seeker missiles the turn they come in from ongoing reserves. Then they sit through one enemy shooting phase, and in their next movement phase they leave the table. The next movement phase, when they arrive again, they're back to full ballistic skill.

You keep claiming that the people voting to nerf Tau aren't aware of the Tau rules, or don't know how they work... are you sure you do?

 CKO wrote:

 The Everliving wrote:

You have to keep in mind - Piranhas are already a relatively weak, joke unit

Just to pitch the other side of this. At the LVO I played against the new Piranha formation (paired with double riptide wing) and could do nothing against it. It's hardly a joke.

My opponent came on the board and dropped his drones and fired his missiles. Survived my return fire (because I had nothing that can reliably take out 6 hull points worth of jinking armour) and then left the board to do the same thing all over again when he came back on the board.

So no. It's not a joke unit. A ton of missiles and kill-point-free drones that zoom up the board and create screens are a pain to deal with.

Turn 1:They Shoot the originals
Turn 2:They Leave
Turn 3:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles
Turn 4:They Leave
Turn 5:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles
Turn 6:They Leave
Turn 7:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles

They gain 2 uses of seeker missiles in a game that last 5 turns. You have 2 turns to take out marker light sources, do you know what a seeker missile is without a markerlight a bs 3 Hunter Killer Missile! Do you know what a Hunter Killer Missile is, most likely not you will have to look it up because its an upgrade that Imperial Players don't use.

What happens when warp spiders shoot at this unit of piranhas with seeker missiles do they jink? If they do they fire at bs 1 regardless if they use a marker light or not another nerf that ITC blessed Tau with but I actually like that one! So they shoot 10 bs 5 str 6 shots at side armor 10 if they jink they lose seeker missile use if they don't math says 4-5 hull points with possible explosions due to being open top so at a minimum you kill 2 piranhas. Do you know how much a 5 man piranha unit with 10 seeker missiles cost 280, do you know how much the bs 5 warp spiders cost 105 points. If I take 2 warp spider units 210 points and shoot at this unit 280 point unit numbers say they are dead unless they jink which they lose their fire power I wrote an article on this formation the formation is good broken no!

In my opinion there is pride involve with the decision to nerf this formation even further. I wrote a thread about ITC Flaws at the same time as their LVO event was happening that put some negative light on the ITC and it wasn't even the purpose of the thread. I than write a thread about the Piranha formation to show why its not broken and players do not understand it, I than receive a lot of hate and I think maybe I am being to hard on the ITC I than try to eradicate my mistake by making another thread called ITC Flawless and its immediately shutdown. I than try to contact them to explain the situation I get no response but when the poll comes out they randomly have a question asking do you want to nerf the piranha formation even further!

I don't have pride I have confidence the fact that this question is even on the poll speaks volumes to me, I know it can all be conceive a different way and I will be made to look a certain way but do confident individuals care about the way others think they look!? I will continue to do what I feel is right, am I wrong for fighting for an army I don't play?

You make it sound like it is easy to take out the markerlights which is not always the case... especially against good Tau players.

I don't have pride I have confidence the fact that this question is even on the poll speaks volumes to me, I know it can all be conceive a different way and I will be made to look a certain way but do confident individuals care about the way others think they look!? I will continue to do what I feel is right, am I wrong for fighting for an army I don't play?

@ CKO, I don't really have a horse in this race but I have read all of your threads on this subject and the quoted sentence speaks volumes. Let me first say I agree with you the formation does not need to be nerfed anymore, past limiting the ability to leave on the same turn they arrive, but dude your writing style makes you come off as a petulant child. Saying you know you can be perceived that way, stating that this question is only on the pole because of some conspiracy to stick it to you, and you don't care because you are right and no one else's opinion matters and you will continue to tell them that! Really? I would almost vote against what you want just because I don't like you and I don't even know you. Word of advice have a neutral party read your posts before you hit send because you are not doing this issue any favors. I think plenty of other people would vote against because you sound like some TFG trying to get his OP rules accepted by everyone, and I know that's not the case. Take a breath, reread or have someone else read your posts before you send, and if you feel people really are ignoring what you have to say why are you wasting your time with this.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 The Everliving wrote:

You have to keep in mind - Piranhas are already a relatively weak, joke unit

Just to pitch the other side of this. At the LVO I played against the new Piranha formation (paired with double riptide wing) and could do nothing against it. It's hardly a joke.

My opponent came on the board and dropped his drones and fired his missiles. Survived my return fire (because I had nothing that can reliably take out 6 hull points worth of jinking armour) and then left the board to do the same thing all over again when he came back on the board.

So no. It's not a joke unit. A ton of missiles and kill-point-free drones that zoom up the board and create screens are a pain to deal with.

Turn 1:They Shoot the originals
Turn 2:They Leave
Turn 3:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles
Turn 4:They Leave
Turn 5:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles
Turn 6:They Leave
Turn 7:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles

They gain 2 uses of seeker missiles in a game that last 5 turns. You have 2 turns to take out marker light sources, do you know what a seeker missile is without a markerlight a bs 3 Hunter Killer Missile! Do you know what a Hunter Killer Missile is, most likely not you will have to look it up because its an upgrade that Imperial Players don't use.

What happens when warp spiders shoot at this unit of piranhas with seeker missiles do they jink? If they do they fire at bs 1 regardless if they use a marker light or not another nerf that ITC blessed Tau with but I actually like that one! So they shoot 10 bs 5 str 6 shots at side armor 10 if they jink they lose seeker missile use if they don't math says 4-5 hull points with possible explosions due to being open top so at a minimum you kill 2 piranhas. Do you know how much a 5 man piranha unit with 10 seeker missiles cost 280, do you know how much the bs 5 warp spiders cost 105 points. If I take 2 warp spider units 210 points and shoot at this unit 280 point unit numbers say they are dead unless they jink which they lose their fire power I wrote an article on this formation the formation is good broken no!

In my opinion there is pride involve with the decision to nerf this formation even further. I wrote a thread about ITC Flaws at the same time as their LVO event was happening that put some negative light on the ITC and it wasn't even the purpose of the thread. I than write a thread about the Piranha formation to show why its not broken and players do not understand it, I than receive a lot of hate and I think maybe I am being to hard on the ITC I than try to eradicate my mistake by making another thread called ITC Flawless and its immediately shutdown. I than try to contact them to explain the situation I get no response but when the poll comes out they randomly have a question asking do you want to nerf the piranha formation even further!

I don't have pride I have confidence the fact that this question is even on the poll speaks volumes to me, I know it can all be conceive a different way and I will be made to look a certain way but do confident individuals care about the way others think they look!? I will continue to do what I feel is right, am I wrong for fighting for an army I don't play?

You make it sound like it is easy to take out the markerlights which is not always the case... especially against good Tau players.

Let's not forget the formation gets its own marker light (+1 bs) from the leader for any point on the table 36" away of LoS and a 6 inch radius. The issue here is the are votes like this, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/681213.page#8479977 from the public. When you have voters not voting for what is best for the game but their perceived biases it waters down credibility.

The first ruling on the piranha formation I agree. There was no need to nuke it. I have no doubt it will be nuked. So now my detachment will sit there on my shelf.

This is a precedent on formations rules in general. Only one unit (Eldar jettbikes) and one formation (Imperial Knights) have received any consideration to be nerf/assisted. This marks the 5th formation for Tau within 4 months (Hunter Contingent *nerf*, Dawn Blade *buff*, Ghostkeel unit *Nerf* by proxy nerds 2 formations (OSC, GK Wing), Piranha Wing *nerf*) that have received isolated attention. All other nerfs to formations have come from general rules, etc. If I missed any please let me know.

Now FLG is not repeating their hastiness, but I expect the same detail to be used for Space Wolves and Daemons. Daemons specifically can expect a vote for the Tetrad, scoring corruption, and a clarification on the Khorne weapon gift that phases enemy models in and out of the game.

...This is a precedent on formations rules in general. Only one unit (Eldar jettbikes) and one formation (Imperial Knights) have received any consideration to be nerf/assisted. This marks the 5th formation for Tau within 4 months (Hunter Contingent *nerf*, Dawn Blade *buff*, Ghostkeel unit *Nerf* by proxy nerds 2 formations (OSC, GK Wing), Piranha Wing *nerf*) that have received isolated attention. All other nerfs to formations have come from general rules, etc. If I missed any please let me know....

I am curious on what is the Dawn Blade *buff*?

These polls are terrible.

You ask people who for the most part who do not have the Tau codex to vote on Holophotons when most people have no clue as to what Holophotons are or do.

Same thing with Chaos Knights being able to take Legacies of Ruin. WTF are legacies of ruin?

How can we vote on something that impacts tournament play without know what the heck we are voting on?

They need to go into depth with this questions and spelling out the rules and what impact (Pro and Con) these have on the game.

 Blackmoor wrote:
These polls are terrible.

You ask people who for the most part who do not have the Tau codex to vote on Holophotons when most people have no clue as to what Holophotons are or do.

Same thing with Chaos Knights being able to take Legacies of Ruin. WTF are legacies of ruin?

How can we vote on something that impacts tournament play without know what the heck we are voting on?

They need to go into depth with this questions and spelling out the rules and what impact (Pro and Con) these have on the game.

We vote for politicians with less information. What the does the state comptroller do? Most people don't know, but we all get a voice about whether Bill Frampton or Jack McColvoy will make a great one!

I'll tell my next point to anyone that will listen. The actual results of these polls are unimportant. Whether one army gets a "buff" or a "nerf" is irrelevant. The fact that we show up to an event and can find a clear answer (even if it's dumb) is the most important outcome.

It's not like the text of the rules are particularly hard to find. I've already seen multiple dissenting opinions on the ghostkeel suits crop up naturally in games several times completely independently of any discussion about ITC for example (which is why I just chuckle when someone claims the rule is clearly written).

 Blackmoor wrote:
These polls are terrible.

You ask people who for the most part who do not have the Tau codex to vote on Holophotons when most people have no clue as to what Holophotons are or do.

Same thing with Chaos Knights being able to take Legacies of Ruin. WTF are legacies of ruin?

How can we vote on something that impacts tournament play without know what the heck we are voting on?

They need to go into depth with this questions and spelling out the rules and what impact (Pro and Con) these have on the game.

You mean like the little note below the question that states "Conflict: The Holophoton Countermeasures rule indicates that the rule is activated on both a per model and per unit basis, creating ambiguity."? Admittedly, the Chaos Knight question is a little difficult, because they neglected to differentiate between a stock Chaos Knight and one that's been upgraded to a Daemon Knight, but again, if you don't have an opinion, why are you voting? Even then, they gave you a little blurb about why it's in contention. I'm sorry that you're apparently too lazy to go out and actually look into the rules before you vote on them, and that you have such a low opinion of other players that you expect they would do the same.

My experience has been that the people I see at large events (including you!) are actually pretty knowledgeable about the rules, and have the resources to make an informed decision.

Tautastic wrote:

...This is a precedent on formations rules in general. Only one unit (Eldar jettbikes) and one formation (Imperial Knights) have received any consideration to be nerf/assisted. This marks the 5th formation for Tau within 4 months (Hunter Contingent *nerf*, Dawn Blade *buff*, Ghostkeel unit *Nerf* by proxy nerds 2 formations (OSC, GK Wing), Piranha Wing *nerf*) that have received isolated attention. All other nerfs to formations have come from general rules, etc. If I missed any please let me know....

I am curious on what is the Dawn Blade *buff*?

The ruling was a small one, but it applies to the entire army not only the detachment.

The killing blow special rule was ruled to affect the whole army? When/where was this ruled?

Tautastic wrote:
The killing blow special rule was ruled to affect the whole army? When/where was this ruled?

Oh terribly sorry that was the NOVA ruling :(

That's just how the "killing blow" rule works - its a buff to the player "you may etcetcetc".

It's never really mattered much because while nice, it's not groundbreaking like coordinated firepower was pre-nerf

 somerandomidiot wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
These polls are terrible.

You ask people who for the most part who do not have the Tau codex to vote on Holophotons when most people have no clue as to what Holophotons are or do.

Same thing with Chaos Knights being able to take Legacies of Ruin. WTF are legacies of ruin?

How can we vote on something that impacts tournament play without know what the heck we are voting on?

They need to go into depth with this questions and spelling out the rules and what impact (Pro and Con) these have on the game.

You mean like the little note below the question that states "Conflict: The Holophoton Countermeasures rule indicates that the rule is activated on both a per model and per unit basis, creating ambiguity."? Admittedly, the Chaos Knight question is a little difficult, because they neglected to differentiate between a stock Chaos Knight and one that's been upgraded to a Daemon Knight, but again, if you don't have an opinion, why are you voting? Even then, they gave you a little blurb about why it's in contention. I'm sorry that you're apparently too lazy to go out and actually look into the rules before you vote on them, and that you have such a low opinion of other players that you expect they would do the same.

My experience has been that the people I see at large events (including you!) are actually pretty knowledgeable about the rules, and have the resources to make an informed decision.

I disagree here. Blackmore is 100% correct and I have said the same thing in another post. The initial Tau votes took place before the codex was out there for any level of consumption. The question about the corsairs army is in a book most people don't have. How would you expect us to know anything about this? We can't all be oniscient like you and know everything about everything. Of note we have four days to vote in these things right? I don't have anyone local with the new Forgeworld book and I think it would take more than four days to get it. The tau voting process has been ridiculously biased especially when I saw an ITC list today that took grey Knights, librarian conclave (white scars so they get hunters eye), and cent star (red scorpions for lothan). All these special rules combine and work together but ITC then nerfs the Tau when they get a rule allowing units to benefit from the commanders special rules when firing att he same unit. It is complete bias and the way the rules are being presented in the voting process is confusing, misleading, and pushes towards a result. You have thousands of people voting on rules that some have no idea about....and you expect fair results!?!

Edit: I also want to add the vote for the piranha wing was voted for because "it was not fun to play against" (clearly stated in an earlier ITC post). Well I don't know many people that will have fun playing against wolf formations that can charge 42" and get almost a guaranteed first turn charge, or an army getting 25% of their army for free (OS), that can alpha strike in the first turn, or the super friend lists that are out there because we allow marine formations and CADs to share rules. Let's vote in all that crap too if this is "to keep the game fun".

You disagree that people should do their homework before voting, or disagree that the rules were availabe for people other than Tau players to read?

On one hand, Frontline gets criticized for not providing enough info in the polls. On the other, they get critisized for providing too much information which biases the poll. Just can't win.

It's also kinda funny that you think a centstar is still a meaningful cheese build. That ship sailed a while ago. It's not bad, but it's far from a top tier army. Especially when you're comparing giving ignores cover and invis to a single unit to granting your entire army ignores cover, twin linked, monster/tank hunter, or whatever other rules you feel like to your entire army basically just for taking a formation. Regardless of whether or not that's a broken formation, that's a silly comparison.

 Fishboy wrote:
I disagree here. Blackmore is 100% correct and I have said the same thing in another post. The initial Tau votes took place before the codex was out there for any level of consumption. The question about the corsairs army is in a book most people don't have. How would you expect us to know anything about this? We can't all be oniscient like you and know everything about everything. Of note we have four days to vote in these things right? I don't have anyone local with the new Forgeworld book and I think it would take more than four days to get it. The tau voting process has been ridiculously biased especially when I saw an ITC list today that took grey Knights, librarian conclave (white scars so they get hunters eye), and cent star (red scorpions for lothan). All these special rules combine and work together but ITC then nerfs the Tau when they get a rule allowing units to benefit from the commanders special rules when firing att he same unit. It is complete bias and the way the rules are being presented in the voting process is confusing, misleading, and pushes towards a result. You have thousands of people voting on rules that some have no idea about....and you expect fair results!?!

Edit: I also want to add the vote for the piranha wing was voted for because "it was not fun to play against" (clearly stated in an earlier ITC post). Well I don't know many people that will have fun playing against wolf formations that can charge 42" and get almost a guaranteed first turn charge, or an army getting 25% of their army for free (OS), that can alpha strike in the first turn, or the super friend lists that are out there because we allow marine formations and CADs to share rules. Let's vote in all that crap too if this is "to keep the game fun".

There are two kinds of questions on the poll: 1) clarifying unclear rules, and 2) changing clear rules. The gargantuan creature cover question was the latter- there's no question regarding how to book rules it, but it's considered abusive enough that we're voting on whether to change it for the purpose of balance. All of the questions you referenced in your post are the former. I'm most certainly not omniscient, but I can look at a rule question (let's take the one about the Eldar Corsairs, for example), compare it to my experience playing 40k (Eldar have a similar rule involving running and shooting, Tau have a character, Darkstrider, who does pretty much the same thing for overwatch, etc) and decide what I feel Forgeworld intended. This isn't about nerfing Eldar Corsairs, it's about the community deciding how they want to interpret Forgeworld's vague wording. The same is true for all of the Tau questions on the poll- the book and formation aren't clear, so we as a community are deciding. Would you rather Frontline didn't poll the community, and instead just decided how they were going to FAQ these?

Personally, I'm not a fan of modifying clear rules (like the changes to Invisibility, Stomp, rerollable 2+ saves, etc) but I recognize that for the tournament environment Frontline Gaming wants to foster, they find it necessary. I fully expect the same will happen with the new Space Wolves models you find so abusive. What bothers me is the persecution complex people seem to have regarding these changes, and the fact that they aren't able to step back and examine the situation from an objective standpoint and recognize that most of the questions on the poll they have issue with fall under the first situation, and not the second.

Edit: Swapped things- oops!

 DarkLink wrote:
Especially when you're comparing giving ignores cover and invis to a single unit to granting your entire army ignores cover, twin linked, monster/tank hunter, or whatever other rules you feel like to your entire army basically just for taking a formation. Regardless of whether or not that's a broken formation, that's a silly comparison.

That ship sailed too. Most Tau players are not upset or want that ruling for a re-vote. The initial voting had two extreme views on the Hunter Contingent. What I'd like to see is a vote with the current HC ruling against the middle view - All units participating on can share buffs on a single target of the attack.

I see a lot of them are beginning the goading in here too. I'm definitely no stranger to that. I also agree with everything CKO has been saying. The ITC is in need of a lot of improvements. I know a lot of people in the general discussion forum think me a troll but I like the ITC and I think it can become something great, but not down the path its going.

I'm simply trying to point out where it's all starting to go wrong so it can be improved and there is a bias against the Tau. Not only that but we have members on this very forum that admit to voting biased against the Tau just because they don't like me. It's getting silly and they're not listening to any sort of reasonable debate points.

At this point for the past year the Tau have been a mid tier army and getting lower. With the data at hand I've been following tournament results and even after their new codex dropped they are still only mid tier, granted the top of the mid tier armies and close to joining their ranks. I think there is insufficient evidence to nerf them without testing. Okay if we unnerf them and they run rampantly out of control sure nerf them again but as of right now any Tau player wanting to compete in an ITC event is looking at an uphill battle against any of the big 4. That being Eldar, Necrons, Marines, and Chaos Deamons.

These public polls are not the way to do this. I don't think so at least. Or they should have a public poll and an internal poll only for registered ITC players. Then they can see the difference between the two voting crowds.

Maybe an "abstain / not informed enough to vote" option for each question would be interesting... I wonder how many people would use it.

 DarkLink wrote:
It's not like the text of the rules are particularly hard to find. I've already seen multiple dissenting opinions on the ghostkeel suits crop up naturally in games several times completely independently of any discussion about ITC for example (which is why I just chuckle when someone claims the rule is clearly written).

If you do not have the codex the rules are hard to find. It took me a while to look up what holophotons countermeasures do.

So looking at the Tau codex there is nothing in it about the Firestream Wing, so your argument that these rules are not hard to find is pretty stupid, because I can't find them.

Also the forge world items like Eldar Corsairs Reckless Abandon, and Legacies of Ruin are hard to find as well.

All the had to do was state what reckless abandon does by quoting the rule.

I want to have an informed vote instead of people voting on things out of ignorance, is that an unreasonable request?

Abstain was my suggestion earlier in this post but I too wonder who would use it.

@somerandomidiot- I don't feel persecuted at all. What people are trying to show you is there is a leaning in the polls that is bias but you just put your blinders on, cover your ears, then call people whiners. People vote based on their PERCEPTION of the power of the rules rather than the wording of the rules. Maybe I am missing something but I do not remember the rule for the corsair being on the voting page. Without the specific wording i can't see any way to knowledgeably vote on this. I know nothing about the Chaos Knight question and have no idea where to find it.

@darklink-your question shows your ignorance. At no point did I question people looking up the rules. My post clearly states the rules are not available to everyone so stop trying to poke the bear. I don't see anyone criticizing Frontline for providing too much info. We are saying the exact opposite. We can not vote on a clear ruling when we don't have all the information. In those instances we should have an abstain option rather than being forced to vote in ignorance. Show both sides of the rules perception and why it is not clear.
You also missed my point on the cent star. Yes it is still a powerful build but the point was the imperial armies get to cherry pick from all their codex/formations to get all the special rules they need to dominate the table. When you fire an entire army at one unit and can't wound it due to invisibility and all the other stacking rules how is that any different than the HC rule for Tau...oh yeah it's an imperial army. The one option that Tau had to do that was nerfed before it was even thoroughly tried. Of note this only worked on one unit being shot at unlike the Imperial stacks that can be army wide.

The frustration here is that these rules don't only affect the LVO. TO's around the country use these FAQ's and it affects people who have no idea they can vote. Also people vote on their perceived power of a rule based on the rage of the inter webs rather than experiencing and trying it out themselves. Not everyone is as plugged in as some people on this forum, has the opportunity to try out the rules, or has access to all the rules. When a local community disagrees but the TO uses the ITC FAQ for ease all you can do is wring your hands. When Frontline has a one side blog about a rule just before a vote you have to question their agenda. All things being equal the Wulfen would already be receiving their nerfs but I fully expect this won't happen.

Yes there is a group becoming frustrated

Actually, people did criticize them for providing info because when they did they discussed it, and people where annoyed that it was swaying opinions of specific rules (Like Coordinated Firepower.)

 Blackmoor wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
It's not like the text of the rules are particularly hard to find. I've already seen multiple dissenting opinions on the ghostkeel suits crop up naturally in games several times completely independently of any discussion about ITC for example (which is why I just chuckle when someone claims the rule is clearly written).

If you do not have the codex the rules are hard to find. It took me a while to look up what holophotons countermeasures do.

So looking at the Tau codex there is nothing in it about the Firestream Wing, so your argument that these rules are not hard to find is pretty stupid, because I can't find them.

Also the forge world items like Eldar Corsairs Reckless Abandon, and Legacies of Ruin are hard to find as well.

All the had to do was state what reckless abandon does by quoting the rule.

I want to have an informed vote instead of people voting on things out of ignorance, is that an unreasonable request?

The rules should be stated, or there should be an abstain option, definitely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gamgee wrote:
I see a lot of them are beginning the goading in here too. I'm definitely no stranger to that. I also agree with everything CKO has been saying. The ITC is in need of a lot of improvements. I know a lot of people in the general discussion forum think me a troll but I like the ITC and I think it can become something great, but not down the path its going.

I'm simply trying to point out where it's all starting to go wrong so it can be improved and there is a bias against the Tau. Not only that but we have members on this very forum that admit to voting biased against the Tau just because they don't like me. It's getting silly and they're not listening to any sort of reasonable debate points.

At this point for the past year the Tau have been a mid tier army and getting lower. With the data at hand I've been following tournament results and even after their new codex dropped they are still only mid tier, granted the top of the mid tier armies and close to joining their ranks. I think there is insufficient evidence to nerf them without testing. Okay if we unnerf them and they run rampantly out of control sure nerf them again but as of right now any Tau player wanting to compete in an ITC event is looking at an uphill battle against any of the big 4. That being Eldar, Necrons, Marines, and Chaos Deamons.

These public polls are not the way to do this. I don't think so at least. Or they should have a public poll and an internal poll only for registered ITC players. Then they can see the difference between the two voting crowds.

The only reason why Tau have had a number of rules come up for a vote is because the codex and supplement has had some of the most poorly-worded rules in recent memory. They tried to do a bunch of stuff and a lot of it is cool and works. But many of the rules could be a LOT more clear. I thought that very thing when I first read the codex, so I'm not shocked that many of them have come up for a vote

 Swampmist wrote:
Actually, people did criticize them for providing info because when they did they discussed it, and people where annoyed that it was swaying opinions of specific rules (Like Coordinated Firepower.)

Let's be honest though, they never presented rules without their opinion or that that hadn't thrown their opinion out on previously. Specifically Coordinated Firepower actually.

I don't know what the answer is. I do feel like there is a fairly substantial bias, either amongst the voting population (probable) or accidentally by the authors, against some armies and for some others.

 Swampmist wrote:
Actually, people did criticize them for providing info because when they did they discussed it, and people where annoyed that it was swaying opinions of specific rules (Like Coordinated Firepower.)

I don't think they were criticized for too much information. They were criticized for a bias in the rules and using their bias to lead the discussion pre vote for their intended outcome. Blog discussion is fine but you need to be unbiased which I don't think Frontline is emulating. When they did their blog in tank shock they did a great job showing both sides of the argument and why each side thought the way it did. When you only put one interpretations spin on it you affect the perception of those voting.

This poll itself I don't find biased. However, people who write editorials elsewhere always have an opinion that they want espoused. The FLG guys are no different. Just because they run a business doesn't mean they are completely neutral with regards to how they think the game should be played. They are human themselves. However, externally from the poll, other people are free to give their counter-views as well. Then there are the Comments sections where a lot of people oftentimes pose strongly contradictory views as well.

Think of it as an election. The election/polls itself need to be fair, but anyone before that can lobby to persuade the public, either via articles or campaign advertising. And if you don't agree, you can opt to do air your views publicly as well (as so many people have already done).

Btw, for those complaining how the polls (and how they are worded) influence people because they aren't questions based on RAW, well, that ship has sailed long ago. If you think the ITC FAQ is completely about RAW, then you are surely mistaken. It is as a much a How-you-would-like-to-play-it series of house rules as well as a collection of rules clarifications.

True JY2 but you can't campaign within 50 feet of an election center. FLG is campaigning all the way up to and including the ballot. I get what they are trying to do but if they are trying to fudge things to suit the way they want to play fine....they need to admit that. Instead they pride themselves on community input when they themselves are heavily influencing the community with one sided stances. FLG can't have it both ways.

FLG's views on Hunter Contingent came out a couple of weeks before their poll on the HC. Plenty of time for people to post their contrasting viewpoints online as well as on the Comments of their article. Trust me, it was all over the various blogs. Plenty of time to give the viewers both perspectives on the rules. The people voting weren't uninformed. They just didn't like the stronger interpretation of the pro-HC crowd.

 jy2 wrote:
FLG's views on Hunter Contingent came out a couple of weeks before their poll on the HC. Plenty of time for people to post their contrasting viewpoints online as well as on the Comments of their article. Trust me, it was all over the various blogs. Plenty of time to give the viewers both perspectives on the rules. The people voting weren't uninformed. They just didn't like the stronger interpretation of the pro-Tau crowd.

JY,

Why was there no middle ground presented? It was only two extremes. Given how broken sharing buffs with units that can target lock or shoot at other targets, it was a given that that vote would not pass. Rational Tau players do not want that version re-evaluated. Middle ground versus conservative poll would suffice.

- TJM

 thejughead wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
FLG's views on Hunter Contingent came out a couple of weeks before their poll on the HC. Plenty of time for people to post their contrasting viewpoints online as well as on the Comments of their article. Trust me, it was all over the various blogs. Plenty of time to give the viewers both perspectives on the rules. The people voting weren't uninformed. They just didn't like the stronger interpretation of the pro-Tau crowd.

JY,

Why was there no middle ground presented? It was only two extremes. Given how broken sharing buffs with units that can target lock or shoot at other targets, it was a given that that vote would not pass. Rational Tau players do not want that version re-evaluated. Middle ground versus conservative poll would suffice.

- TJM

My guess is that they didn't want to present too many options to the viewers as it could lead to more confusion.

I suggest you email them or submit a request with regards to changing HC to the "middle-ground" solution:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform

contact@frontlinegaming.org

or

Frankie@FrontlineGaming.org

The take away I'm getting from this thread is; "If you can't be perfect, then don't try. And if you still try and I don't like it. Then you need to die in a fire."

I seriously think the only thing worse than the rules for 40k are the people who play it.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The take away I'm getting from this thread is; "If you can't be perfect, then don't try. And if you still try and I don't like it. Then you need to die in a fire."

I seriously think the only thing worse than the rules for 40k are the people who play it.

Crimson Devil = Joshua!

Thank you kronk for putting into perspective for me.

The posting of the results is delayed! I bet the Tau votes are close and they are just delaying things to allow anti-Tau voters more time to submit their nerfs!

bogalubov wrote:
The posting of the results is delayed! I bet the Tau votes are close and they are just delaying things to allow anti-Tau voters more time to submit their nerfs!

Come on, enough of this....I hope you are joking

bogalubov wrote:
The posting of the results is delayed! I bet the Tau votes are close and they are just delaying things to allow anti-Tau voters more time to submit their nerfs!

Oh, you!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Thank you kronk for putting into perspective for me.

Love to the family.

 thejughead wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
The posting of the results is delayed! I bet the Tau votes are close and they are just delaying things to allow anti-Tau voters more time to submit their nerfs!

Come on, enough of this....I hope you are joking

I was hoping the italics would help identify it as a joke. But yes, I'm joking.

Signals is delayed today too, because of a huge shipment to their warehouse. Its probably all of the hate mail and IEDs Tau plays have been sending them.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The take away I'm getting from this thread is; "If you can't be perfect, then don't try. And if you still try and I don't like it. Then you need to die in a fire."

I seriously think the only thing worse than the rules for 40k are the people who play it.

I'm not sure if it's more or less funny that Reece and Frankie have legitimately recieved actual death threats from tau players over this. Either way, that's pathetic.

The irony is I've seen everyone but Tau getting stupid. We have one person in general discussion voting to nerf Tau because they hate me. They don't even play in the ITC, don't like tournaments, and play Eldar. Welcome to your average public voter. So the ITC is basically a popularity contest and a pissing contest all in one.

One person = the community, Aparently

I've also seen more in other communities best not named here saying they will do the same. I rarely see as much hate for other groups being voted for. Something about Tau being 'anime fan communists who deserve this'. It's usually Eldar and Space Marine players too.

It's silly not to think there are some going to do it. I'm not and haven't (not that I have any proof) but still it pisses me off.

 Gamgee wrote:
The irony is I've seen everyone but Tau getting stupid. We have one person in general discussion voting to nerf Tau because they hate me. They don't even play in the ITC, don't like tournaments, and play Eldar. Welcome to your average public voter. So the ITC is basically a popularity contest and a pissing contest all in one.

I hate to break it to you, but your recent posting history may have something to do with the harsh backlash you're seeing... Seriously man, you started a thread titled "ITC Nerfs Tau Again. Avoid the ITC if you can folks."

 somerandomidiot wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
The irony is I've seen everyone but Tau getting stupid. We have one person in general discussion voting to nerf Tau because they hate me. They don't even play in the ITC, don't like tournaments, and play Eldar. Welcome to your average public voter. So the ITC is basically a popularity contest and a pissing contest all in one.

I hate to break it to you, but your recent posting history may have something to do with the harsh backlash you're seeing... Seriously man, you started a thread titled "ITC Nerfs Tau Again. Avoid the ITC if you can folks."

Not to mention the Operation Pitchfork thread a while back. Seriously, what an embarrassing and childish read that was. You can hardly be surprised you call for all 40k players to refuse games against Eldar, then complain when an Eldar player votes to nerf your army.

And Gamgee wonders why people don't like him...

Are you implying something? Last I checked you made a few people angry yourself John.

There's a funny saying from Lucky Number Slevin; "if somone says you look like a horse once, call him a jerk. If somone says you look like a horse a second time, punch him in the face. If someone says you look like a horse a third time, well, maybe it's time to go shopping for a saddle".

 DarkLink wrote:
There's a funny saying from Lucky Number Slevin; "if somone says you look like a horse once, call him a jerk. If somone says you look like a horse a second time, punch him in the face. If someone says you look like a horse a third time, well, maybe it's time to go shopping for a saddle".

Good thing no one has said I look like a horse yet. Though I'm guessing you would prefer donkey right? I know a lot of people think the noble ass is underrated but as a species it is very hard working to earn its reputation.

Yes, no one in this entire thread has critisized your opinions or posting behavior in any way whatsoever .

That's what we're talking about? I thought we were talking about horses and donkeys?

It was figurative.

I guess metaphors are a little too complex a concept for this discussion.

I'm clearly a little lost here.

 DarkLink wrote:
Yes, no one in this entire thread has critisized your opinions or posting behavior in any way whatsoever .

1) You've been criticized yourself a fair bit, so I'd be careful tossing that one around, it probably fits most of us more then we'd like.

2) I think, and this includes myself in my response to John earlier, we've gotten pretty far afield from discussing the poll and instead have been discussing the posters for a page or two, so we *might* want to try and get back on track.

3) The only good thing is that no matter what happens, the poll results come out, and these threads will end (or at least begin a complaining deathspiral that leads to locking).


@moreontopic

I think the take away should be from this that the community *really* cares how these polls are conducted, and they need to keep improving. This one didn't insert as much bias/opinion in, but it also lacked enough background information. If we're (community) going to do these polls, I think we need to:

-Assume your average voter is uninformed
-Assume your average voter isn't intimately familiar with the rule in question (there are about 14 armies and a million supplements, most people play a couple)

As such:
-Include the rules basis for the question. All relevant rules quotes should be included, then a question. For Example: "The Holophoton Countermeasures Rule from Codex: Tau Empire states: (EXACT QUOTE). Given the text there is confusion as to whether a holophotons are activated model by model, or all at once by a unit. The difference would be three activations in a unit of three ghostkeels, versus one." Then your question.

I think if we adjusted the polls to have no opinion, include the background info, and state the options, we'd be in a much better place. For instance, I'm probably more up on rules then almost anyone, and I'm not very familiar with the specific Corsair's question that was asked.

No more personal posts / insinuations about the character of other posters --- this thread is for discussing the ITC poll! Anything else is off-topic...

Thanks all

1) You've been criticized yourself a fair bit, so I'd be careful tossing that one around, it probably fits most of us more then we'd like.

The point of the metaphor is the ability to recognize blind spots. I'm occasionally wrong about stuff and tend to err on the side of supporting Frontline, at least in public, because Reece and Frankie are awesome guys and good friends who are doing a better job than anyone else out there at organizing a large scale 40k tournament scene. So, sure, sometimes I defend them from a bit of criticism they might actually deserve. It's not like you haven't taken heat for the way you've run team america, but unless you actually are running a secret cabal then a lot of that criticism is either mitigated or undeserved.

Until I spam a half dozen threads with the positive equivalent of "ITC is the worst thing evar and Reece and Frankie are out to get the tau players", only to get repeatedly and thoroughly rebuffed by most of the people in those threads, I'm not going to feel too bad about backing them up, any more than you'll feel bad about player selection for team america.

 DarkLink wrote:

1) You've been criticized yourself a fair bit, so I'd be careful tossing that one around, it probably fits most of us more then we'd like.

The point of the metaphor is the ability to recognize blind spots. I'm occasionally wrong about stuff and tend to err on the side of supporting Frontline, at least in public, because Reece and Frankie are awesome guys and good friends who are doing a better job than anyone else out there at organizing a large scale 40k tournament scene. So, sure, sometimes I defend them from a bit of criticism they might actually deserve. It's not like you haven't taken heat for the way you've run team america, but unless you actually are running a secret cabal then a lot of that criticism is either mitigated or undeserved.

Until I spam a half dozen threads with the positive equivalent of "ITC is the worst thing evar and Reece and Frankie are out to get the tau players", only to get repeatedly and thoroughly rebuffed by most of the people in those threads, I'm not going to feel too bad about backing them up, any more than you'll feel bad about player selection for team america.

Yup, by saying most of us I was including myself. And yeah, Gamgee/CKO can be a tad...over the top, but hey, it's the internet, it's sadly what most of us have come to expect right? Heck, there are a few people in this thread I have on ignore and I'll tell you it drastically improves the experience. The problem is the back and forth (both sides, and def. some are more to blame on each in this thread) can really detract from people who are more critical of the ITC from getting across decent points that could improve the ITC, and from people who support the ITC from seeing them, because it's all hidden in ten feet of internet muck.

Now about this secret cabal....how would one go about setting this up....

 RiTides wrote:
No more personal posts / insinuations about the character of other posters --- this thread is for discussing the ITC poll! Anything else is off-topic...

Thanks all

As noted above - let's get back on-topic.

Is the plan to still release the results of the poll today? I saw mention of it being delayed but wasn't sure if that was official or just a guess...

 RiTides wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
No more personal posts / insinuations about the character of other posters --- this thread is for discussing the ITC poll! Anything else is off-topic...

Thanks all

As noted above - let's get back on-topic.

Is the plan to still release the results of the poll today? I saw mention of it being delayed but wasn't sure if that was official or just a guess...

Official, they posted that on FLG. Said it'd be delayed a couple hours.

Personally I think there should be no preemptive nerfing of anything.

Most things that people think are broken we find that there is some fatal flaw that makes them not work as everyone feared. The ones that do work well the meta ends up coming around to compensate and diminishes it's impact. With the nerf bat swinging it takes out combos that sometimes do not need to be nerfed, or combos that strategy and tactics can take care of.

I think that we should only vote to nerf things that are proven to be too powerful, and the meta can't compensate for.

So we should be voting about nerfing warp spider armies, and instead we are voting on Tau.

Sorry Blackmoor, but you're kinda late to the party. Warp Spiders already are nerfed in the ITC.

Alan what do you think should be nerfed ? I really want to know !

Just finished watching the Signals from the Frontline and here were a few decisions that I picked up:

1) Stay with three detachments
2) Points limit: Stay at 1850 - sly Frankie voted 1850 lol, Reecius outing him like that! They are trying to think of ways to increase awareness of time.
3) Dead even between 1500 and 1650 (1650 had a slight edge but irrelevant)
4) Not sure on Gargantuan toe in cover.
5) Ghostkeel one was dead even.
6) Not sure on Pirahna ones
7) Chaos Knights can use Legacies of Ruins
8) Corsairs don't get to move after Overwatch

They still need to verify emails and stuff but this is what it looks like at the minute.

They are also going to address GreenTide being removed.

Per Reece on FLG website: OK, nm, trying to get the data verified but day is running short. The shipments coming in late burned a day on us.
So far for sure:
1,850pts
3 Detachments
ITC Faction will be the detachment with the most points in it
Yes to Chaos Knight with Legacies
No to Eldar Corsair Jetbikes shooting then scooting in overwatch
The rest to come very soon! Sorry for the delay.
- See more at: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/02/26/signals-from-the-frontline-will-be-late-today-2/#comments


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh ninja'd by Frozocone

Bummer about 1850, I totally would have been tempted to build something for 1500! At least there's 3 detachment sanity lol

I missed the ITC faction decision though. They said a whole bunch of decisions, then someone prompted their memory and they asked that.

Wait til I post my LVO battle reports using the Chaos Knight and a Legacy of Ruin. muhahahahaha......

 jy2 wrote:
Wait til I post my LVO battle reports using the Chaos Knight and a Legacy of Ruin. muhahahahaha......

Yes that is a very strong combo. Daemon psykers rerolling 6 dice a turn on top of the Knight with a 2++. Ouch!

wait, why can Chaos Knights use Legacies, but not knights taken in an SM detahcment?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
wait, why can Chaos Knights use Legacies, but not knights taken in an SM detahcment?

Because that's what was voted for in this last poll?

Also, I think legacies work different between CSM and SM, not sure.

 Frozocrone wrote:

2) Points limit: Stay at 1850

They are also going to address GreenTide being removed.

2) that is a shame, but so be it.

Losing GT would kill one of the more effective builds in a subpar codex.

 RiTides wrote:
Bummer about 1850, I totally would have been tempted to build something for 1500! At least there's 3 detachment sanity lol

But are detachments made of multiple detachments still only considered one?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthDiggler wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
Wait til I post my LVO battle reports using the Chaos Knight and a Legacy of Ruin. muhahahahaha......

Yes that is a very strong combo. Daemon psykers rerolling 6 dice a turn on top of the Knight with a 2++. Ouch!

How does that happen? I mean I see how you get 4+...maybe even 3+

It's a daemon so you grimoire it

 kronk wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

2) Points limit: Stay at 1850

They are also going to address GreenTide being removed.

2) that is a shame, but so be it.

Losing GT would kill one of the more effective builds in a subpar codex.

I hope they keep the green tide in. It was a pain to play against due to moving so many models, but it was fluffy and fun

Because of the abuse I received as Kenpachi, you guys have transformed me into Aizen. Aizen bankai is complete hypnosis and he is a villain. I have become a monster to battle a monster. The monster is not FLG it is something else but realize my intentions are different or are my intentions the same and its part of my complete hypnosis, you decide?

I cant wait for the results because I am going to write articles in a fashion where my reputation might make you believe that I am doing it because I dislike FLG. Which is not true I hate when people make the wrong choice but I am not powerful enough to get you to vote for the right choice or am I?

My complete hypnosis is going to creep you guys out but, remember I am not a bad guy, I am Kenpachi choosing to be Aizen to help you!

If you understood that than you know I am still Kenpachi! If someone figures this out than I will admit that they are a better 40k player than me!

I cant wait for them to post the results!

Wtf are you on about...

Somebody drank too much kool-aid

 Blackmoor wrote:
So we should be voting about nerfing warp spider armies, and instead we are voting on Tau.

Not appreciating the hate, Allan.

 Fxeni wrote:
Somebody drank too much kool-aid

More like smoked too many recreational mushrooms

I think the more ITC discussion and the less attention seeking role playing in this thread, the better.

I'll still pulling for the Ghostkeel, sounds like it's a photo finish!

Regardless of where the Ghostkeel and other rulings go, ITC should really do decisions based on super majority, simple majority are grounds for revoting or playtesting as it is and if it's still deemed broken or unfun, put it to the vote where it should have a super majority to be nerfed IMO.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Regardless of where the Ghostkeel and other rulings go, ITC should really do decisions based on super majority, simple majority are grounds for revoting or playtesting as it is and if it's still deemed broken or unfun, put it to the vote where it should have a super majority to be nerfed IMO.

They should have an electoral vote based on region and population. And that electoral college should be able to vote on rules!

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Alan what do you think should be nerfed ? I really want to know !

From the looks of things at the LVO it seemed like there was a good spread of armies in the top 8/50.

If I was to nerf something it would be to limit armies to 3 squads of warp spiders. The fact that some army builds can spam one of the best units in the game without too much trouble is not too good. The armies that took 45 warp spiders went 14-2 at LVO and won the tournament.

I think it's funny to see questions about the Chaos Knight coming up now. Just more of a litmus test as to how screwed up this "voting process" has become. Most people did not even know what this rule vote was but still had to vote.

Alan,

I agree Warp Spiders are rediculously strong, but nerfing a specific codex unit/ limiting them opens a huge can of worms! Next we should limit Space Wolf HQs to only be allowed max 2, Daemons limit to 15 PD, etc.

Each army had its own unique flavour. Bare in mind, Warp Spiders CAN die, they arnt an invincible deathstar!

The 2 players bringing the list are also ETC players, myself and Matt, so stating our record doesnt justify just the list!

As for the results of the new ITC vote, im intrigued to see the points limit!

But that is exactly what they did to the Tau kill switch.

Nerfing a specific codex is definitely something to be wary of - but I think that's exactly what a lot of the things being voted on are doing... so that ship has sailed a bit (not saying you shouldn't try to call it back into port though lol).

KillswitchUK wrote:
Alan,

I agree Warp Spiders are rediculously strong, but nerfing a specific codex unit/ limiting them opens a huge can of worms! Next we should limit Space Wolf HQs to only be allowed max 2, Daemons limit to 15 PD, etc.

Each army had its own unique flavour. Bare in mind, Warp Spiders CAN die, they arnt an invincible deathstar!

The 2 players bringing the list are also ETC players, myself and Matt, so stating our record doesnt justify just the list!

As for the results of the new ITC vote, im intrigued to see the points limit!

Limiting Warp Spiders to 3 units does not limit the EldR Codex at all. It limits a formation and FW addition, but not the Eldar CAD.

Of course Warp Spiders can die, though hard to do sometimes. That is why taking 45 mitigates the dieing. Even killing half of them still leaves more Warp Spiders on the table than most any other unit.

Constant, targeted nerfs at the Tau codex? Everyone's fine with it. Good for the game. Tau players are just WAAC whiners who don't want their win buttons taken away.

Taking a moment to target another overpowered army and reign them in a bit, an army that we actually have evidence of being too fething strong? Nooo, that opens a whole can of worms and takes away from that army's "unique flavor"! Leave them alone!

If I had to rank them in order of severity I'd say taking 45 warp spiders is several orders of magnitude worse than the issue with ghostkeels holophoton countermeasures. Why wasn't that on the fething poll?

Have an exalt Sid as you hit the nail on the head. As J2Y posted earlier....this is less about clearing up rules and more about "how they want to play". The bias is so clear and evident but ignored. Point it out and suddenly you are TFG and a whiner. I just started a Tau army that is not built to be over the top, I just like the looks of the suits. Every time I get a unit or two done there is a sudden ITC vote which is soooo frustrating as they are targeting everything new in the codex.

Warp Spiders have already been reigned in by the ITC in the similar sense as the Firestream formation being reigned it. By RAW, Warp Spiders have unlimited Flickerjumps, which is just plain stupid. But in the ITC, they have been limited to just 1 Flickerjump a turn.

Limiting the number of Warp Spiders is, while not totally impossible, something the ITC is very unlikely to do. Just like they won't limit how many Riptides you can take, how many IC's can join a unit, how much Warp Dice you can have in your army, etc. With the exception of Super-heavies/Gargantuans, that is just not their style. The only time that they ever tried to put a cap on a non-Super-heavy unit was the vote on Scatter Lasers on Eldar jetbikes.

Then again, if their Inboxes get inundated with a bunch of complaints about Warp Spiders. Who knows? Maybe they may do something about it.

Thank goodness they don't limit riptides.....it's about the only thing you will see competitively on the table for Tau the way they are going. At this point I will personally boycot FLG and encourage others to do it. I will vote with my dollars and encourage others to take their business elsewhere. I can appreciate their effort to clarify the game but at this point they are manipulating the game to their standard and manipulating the voting process through bias and uniformed balloting. I don't think they are bad people but I do think they, and this magical silent minority that seems to agree with them on everything and vehemently defend them whenever their name comes into a negative light, are negatively influencing the game. This will become 30k (marine on marine) and Eldar at competitive events simply because that is the way they want to play and they will nerf everything to make it that way. In an ITC event the only thing left is the Stormsurge and Riptide that leave the army semi competitive....and isn't that the way Frankie plays the list any way?

Reece's first step is to publicly admit that they are not working towards a FAQ but rather manipulating the game the way they see fit. The only person I have seen admit this is J2Y. Then maybe fewer tournaments will use their "FAQ", which is less of a FAQ and more of a personal house ruling.

In the past I thought they were doing a good job but recently this is just not the case.

I think the bummer for me is that new units are so susceptible to preemptive rulings under the system... whereas powerful existing units are not. I think that risks stagnating the meta, whereas new releases normally advance it and change what is optimal...

If we just see Riptide spam Tau being the best / most prominent build going forward, that would be a huge bummer, and feel like we're frozen on how you can best run the army despite the new releases. That's my concern in general - we're okay with the devil we know, but not the one we don't, using this system.

Still, fingers crossed for the Ghostkeel sounds like it has a chance of making it through depending on the final tallies!

That's the thing, ITC is simply an FAQ.

It takes a hell of a lot of work to house rule 7th edition so it's more convenient to just take the work ITC have done and use that. Modify it as you see fit according to how you think the game should be played.

Granted, if you go to an ITC tournament then you'll have to abide by their rules, but hey if you're going to boycott, then what they say about rules shouldn't affect you right?

Besides, we still don't know how the votes went for Tau. Ghostkeel was 50:50 so that might come out in favour of per model.

Tau nerfs were just that, NERFS to the RULES through an FAQ. Limitations is completely different which changes the codex in it's entirety. Limiting the amount of units you can take is basically creating a Highlander format, which is neither competitive or balanced.

The sad part Ritides is it should not have even been close. But they did not post both sides of the discussion so people vote on perceived power rather than actual play leading to what we are seeing. Where is the knee jerk reaction to the wulfen? Will they word the vote better to influence the outcome? I fully expect that if/when they vote more effort will be put into it simply because they like it. The last two voting ballots have been train wrecks leading to a manipulation of the voting process. The best one they ever did was the Tank Shock video that showed both sides to the discussion with clear voting options. The last two just seem rushed with little investment in effort.

Kill switch it has been clearly stated they are not interested in balance or competitive standard. They are simply FAQing to make the game the way they want it to be. They limited the Wraithknight where multiples could be taken in a formation...how is that different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frozone they have moved beyond FAQ and moved to changing rules. So no....it is not just an FAQ

I just want to put this out. While I am a friend of the FLG guys, I am in no ways involved in the ITC rules and polling process (other than I voted in their polls).

The opinions that I put forth in these types of threads are just that - my own, personal opinions - and do not reflect the actual opinions of the ITC founders.

KillswitchUK wrote:
Tau nerfs were just that, NERFS to the RULES through an FAQ. Limitations is completely different which changes the codex in it's entirety. Limiting the amount of units you can take is basically creating a Highlander format, which is neither competitive or balanced.

So limiting Warp Spiders to 30 in an army is now Highlander?

And going up to 45 Spiders is NOT in the Eldar codex. It is part of a Forgeworld supplement.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Constant, targeted nerfs at the Tau codex? Everyone's fine with it. Good for the game. Tau players are just WAAC whiners who don't want their win buttons taken away.

Taking a moment to target another overpowered army and reign them in a bit, an army that we actually have evidence of being too fething strong? Nooo, that opens a whole can of worms and takes away from that army's "unique flavor"! Leave them alone!

If I had to rank them in order of severity I'd say taking 45 warp spiders is several orders of magnitude worse than the issue with ghostkeels holophoton countermeasures. Why wasn't that on the fething poll?

Hear hear. I agree.

DarthDiggler wrote:

KillswitchUK wrote:
Tau nerfs were just that, NERFS to the RULES through an FAQ. Limitations is completely different which changes the codex in it's entirety. Limiting the amount of units you can take is basically creating a Highlander format, which is neither competitive or balanced.

So limiting Warp Spiders to 30 in an army is now Highlander?

And going up to 45 Spiders is NOT in the Eldar codex. It is part of a Forgeworld supplement.

You can easily get to 45 Spiders in a Warhost using a Windrider Core and still have about ~400 points to spare for other units.

PanzerLeader wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

KillswitchUK wrote:
Tau nerfs were just that, NERFS to the RULES through an FAQ. Limitations is completely different which changes the codex in it's entirety. Limiting the amount of units you can take is basically creating a Highlander format, which is neither competitive or balanced.

So limiting Warp Spiders to 30 in an army is now Highlander?

And going up to 45 Spiders is NOT in the Eldar codex. It is part of a Forgeworld supplement.

You can easily get to 45 Spiders in a Warhost using a Windrider Core and still have about ~400 points to spare for other units.

Can you do it in 9 units of 5 to maximize MSU shananigans? Or are you forced to clump them together into larger less efficient units.

DarthDiggler wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

KillswitchUK wrote:
Tau nerfs were just that, NERFS to the RULES through an FAQ. Limitations is completely different which changes the codex in it's entirety. Limiting the amount of units you can take is basically creating a Highlander format, which is neither competitive or balanced.

So limiting Warp Spiders to 30 in an army is now Highlander?

And going up to 45 Spiders is NOT in the Eldar codex. It is part of a Forgeworld supplement.

You can easily get to 45 Spiders in a Warhost using a Windrider Core and still have about ~400 points to spare for other units.

Can you do it in 9 units of 5 to maximize MSU shananigans? Or are you forced to clump them together into larger less efficient units.

9 units of five with 3 aspect hosts. Depending on army construction guidelines, you can do 2 aspect hosts and a small CAD with Autarch, min. bikes and the last 3 spiders.

 jy2 wrote:
I just want to put this out. While I am a friend of the FLG guys, I am in no ways involved in the ITC rules and polling process (other than I voted in their polls).

The opinions that I put forth in these types of threads are just that - my own, personal opinions - and do not reflect the actual opinions of the ITC founders.

Sorry J2Y. My intent was never to implicate you in that way. After our discussion at NOVA last year I Know how close you are to the FLG group and have been referencing your statements in their absence as you know their true intent.

If your coming to NOVA I'll buy you a beer....still disagree....but buy you a beer hehehe

DarthDiggler wrote:
And going up to 45 Spiders is NOT in the Eldar codex. It is part of a Forgeworld supplement.

PanzerLeader wrote:
9 units of five with 3 aspect hosts. Depending on army construction guidelines, you can do 2 aspect hosts and a small CAD with Autarch, min. bikes and the last 3 spiders.

How about 2 Aspect Hosts, and then a near fully stocked Fast Attack in the C.A.D. ? 81 Spiders, 27 that shoot at BS4

C.A.D.
Farseer on Jetbike
Jetbikes
Jetbikes

Fast Attack
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch

Aspect Host
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch


Aspect Host
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch


1848

Did I miss something in the ITC construction rules?

@brotherkerose: You're correct. That is the maximum number. I was just responding to Darth's question about whether you needed the FW army list to do spider shenanigans.

PanzerLeader wrote:
@brotherkerose: You're correct. That is the maximum number. I was just responding to Darth's question about whether you needed the FW army list to do spider shenanigans.

Absolutely! You and I are on the same page.

I posted that to help you show Darth just how many Spiders I'll be bringing to ITC events. Err, I mean, showing how many are possible to bring ...

Srsly, if one chops the JetSeer down to a throw away foot-Warlock, there can be a few full 10 Aspect Host units.

And for the record, I proposed this 81 Spiders list to my local TO at our RTT. Which was the weekend after LVO. He smirked. He is/was also head judge at LVO.

Ironically the best answer I have found to Warp Spiders is Mawlocs. Maybe we will start seeing 6 Mawlocs list now to counter the warp spider spam heheh

Aizen returns just to highlight something this person says, was this caused by my relentless pursuit to show injustice or do I hate FLG?

Fishboy wrote:Reece's first step is to publicly admit that they are not working towards a FAQ but rather manipulating the game the way they see fit. The only person I have seen admit this is J2Y. Then maybe fewer tournaments will use their "FAQ", which is less of a FAQ and more of a personal house ruling.

In the past I thought they were doing a good job but recently this is just not the case.

Earlier on in this thread or the other thread that is discussing the same thing I mention that their pride is involve that is why they want to further nerf the piranha wing. It was out of their hate of me (I hope I am wrong) that is why the piranha wing question about not regaining models is even on the poll! Now they are being expose by the guy who won the entire thing I am assuming Fishboy is Alan!

Funny how Aizen can use Karma to get his point across!

If you are Alan do you remember playing a black guy on table 1 day 2 at War Games Con like around 6 years ago.

Any way they need to hurry up and release the results so I can build my army that might beat Alan when I am not hung over!

No I am not Alan (I know of him and he is a far superior player than I am). I did not attend LVO this year. My concern comes in the fact the ATC has attaptd to the ITC FAQ.

I doubt any of these ruling are directed at you.

The majority of players love their marines. The non astartes chapters ICs were given a pass by voters. Wulfen - IC will get the same pass.

It's sad too as that rule seems quite clear in the BRB. But I guess that does not matter.....

 Fishboy wrote:
No I am not Alan (I know of him and he is a far superior player than I am).

I know you are not blackmoor is, remember I am Aizen lol!

I need to stop but its so funny to me atleast.

I am glad it stayed at 1850!

Conspiracy theories. Demands for super majorities. Demands for transparency.

I feel like I blacked out and awoke in a world where the thing that I do to avoid the real world has turned into the same, every day crap.

It doesn't make sense to me because people fail to see that any individual ruling in the ITC is irrelevant because its key function remains intact. Two players who don't know each other can set up a game and play while having minimal conversation about the rules and their interpretations.

But I'm fairly certain that it's just a nightmare because all of a sudden people think that GW writes clear rules and the clear ones are not dumb.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Regardless of where the Ghostkeel and other rulings go, ITC should really do decisions based on super majority, simple majority are grounds for revoting or playtesting as it is and if it's still deemed broken or unfun, put it to the vote where it should have a super majority to be nerfed IMO.

How do you do that though? I get that for balance changes this is possible (and a good idea, I think) but for rules clarifications (which were badly needed in the case of coordinate fire for example) there is no "default" to fall back on if a vote fails to garner a super majority. You can't wait. That is why the hunter contingent was put up for vote so soon after the book came out in the first place - the BAO was coming up and they NEEDED to establish a ruling, but decided to do so by popular vote instead of making a unilateral decision.

I think if that was the case the TO, being that it is his/her tournament would have to enforce a ruling/errata/FAQ for the tournament and then bring it to vote once the tournament is over.

 luke1705 wrote:
You can't wait. That is why the hunter contingent was put up for vote so soon after the book came out in the first place - the BAO was coming up and they NEEDED to establish a ruling, but decided to do so by popular vote instead of making a unilateral decision.

Let me help FLG out, say alot of the recent rule changes and polls were rushed because of LVO and re-vote on them being more detail oriented questions without their bias.

 DarkLink wrote:
I'm not sure if it's more or less funny that Reece and Frankie have legitimately recieved actual death threats from tau players over this. Either way, that's pathetic.

Who ever threatend someone over a game, an actual life threat is stupid and if I was Reecius or Frank I would call the cops. They are alot nicer than me dont deserve that type of hate for making mistakes when they are trying to make the game better they are not going to get everything right.

THE THREAT ME THE OFF!

 Sidstyler wrote:
Constant, targeted nerfs at the Tau codex? Everyone's fine with it. Good for the game. Tau players are just WAAC whiners who don't want their win buttons taken away.

Taking a moment to target another overpowered army and reign them in a bit, an army that we actually have evidence of being too fething strong? Nooo, that opens a whole can of worms and takes away from that army's "unique flavor"! Leave them alone!

If I had to rank them in order of severity I'd say taking 45 warp spiders is several orders of magnitude worse than the issue with ghostkeels holophoton countermeasures. Why wasn't that on the fething poll?

As an Ork player, I'm starting to agree with the Tau players. Not so much about the Tau nerfs, but the lack of Eldar nerfs is really starting to annoy me. Only because such a large percentage of the players are Eldar, no Eldar nerfs get passed. This is bogus.

We need weighted voting, and probably just among actual tournament players. The questions should be submitted to entrants of ITC events, and the primary faction of each voter is logged and weighted. If there are only a few SOB or BA players, their votes count more.

It is great that they are including the community but voting in this way is a bad way to make rules and take the effort to make these FAQ's.
But there are a few issues with it.
.

1. The whole "Nef rock paper is fine " effect.

2. There is noting to prevent uneducated voters from voting.
There are some tournaments in here (on the other side of the wordl :\ ) that use their "faq". So I voted .I have totally no opinion on 1/5th of the questions asked. There is no way to skipp those questions and I have 0 interest into really dig into the issue so I went with my gut feeling. Possible hurting other players army in the process and I am sure that I am not the only one who does this.

3 They present it as a FAQ giving the idea that these are actual good rule interpretations while in reality they also incorporate the result of uneducated community gut feeling, rebalancing and selfish voting.

I might add that the alternative, make your own FAQ's and ignore the public might be worse . Since you will be the one who is the bad guy if the community doesn't like your rulings. I would not want to be the ITC : P

 JimOnMars wrote:
We need weighted voting, and probably just among actual tournament players. The questions should be submitted to entrants of ITC events, and the primary faction of each voter is logged and weighted. If there are only a few SOB or BA players, their votes count more.

Someone mentions this once in a while in these threads and I will repeat it, to address your frustration, JimOnMars:
Except for LVO and BAO, any other event you go to, call them in advance, voice your opinions that some of the ITC rulings aren't fun, and are they willing to mitigate or change any of the rulings? Call your buddies and work out a pleasant, but vocal community that helps make your events fun for you.

For instance, my FLGameStore, Game Empire Pasadena has the harsher Crunch! interpretation for Tank Shock. It has not 'broke' or really impacted our meta. We like it.

Except for BAO and LVO, these rulings are simply there to be used or not. Support your local scene RTT & GTs, get chummy with the TOs and if something isn't cool to your crew, change it.

"Waagh waaagh, the ITC is evil"

Regardless the current system works and the game is better because of the ITC. There was nothing wrong with any of the ITC changes so far. Some may claim the hunter continent change was heavy handed however even the moderate interpretation is still extremely strong. So I stand by statement nothing the ITC has ever change was bad for the game and only makes the game better.

Did the full results get posted? Im just curious if the combined choices for 1500 and 1650 pt games were higher than the 1850 total.

 Iechine wrote:
Did the full results get posted? Im just curious if the combined choices for 1500 and 1650 pt games were higher than the 1850 total.

Won't lend itself to that kind of analysis. It was a two part question. One: do you want to drop points or stay at 1850? Two: if we drop, 1500 or 1650?

gungo wrote:
"Waagh waaagh, the ITC is evil"

Regardless the current system works and the game is better because of the ITC. There was nothing wrong with any of the ITC changes so far. Some may claim the hunter continent change was heavy handed however even the moderate interpretation is still extremely strong. So I stand by statement nothing the ITC has ever change was bad for the game and only makes the game better.

Yet invisible Dark Thunder Scars exists and just got a boost at first turn charge that allows no reaction or interaction from your opponent. That is about 5 stackable USRs that can render and envelope an entire deployment zone. And yet the boogie man is HC.

How is the Solar staff still creating snap shots while the entire army of scarabs daisy chains itself so one member can be inside the VSG so the unit that is 24 inches away can still claim its benefit? Yet HC is the boogie man.

Screamers can now fly all over the board and claim objectives they are not even on. And YES, HC is the boogie man.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
...No the ITC and FLG is not evil!

No, not evil. But their process and tendencies have become questionable.

Questionable because the game is Better or because the ITC doesn't allow your overpowered formation benefit to be played how you want it?

And nothing the person above you mentioned did anything of worth in the ITC if at least he complained about warp spiders he would of had an augment to stand on but he complained about junk like screamers and thunder stars which didn't do much better Tau.

Overall FGL is doing a great job. They bit off a little more than they could chew wanting to roll back the points to 1500. That's too big a change.